NationStates Jolt Archive

Video and article here (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_7263.aspx).

Former Student Sues Teacher Over Alleged Sexual Relationship
Friday January 26, 2007

A 22-year-old man is suing his former English teacher after claiming she had sex with him for four years, commencing when he was a grade 11 student at St. Peter's Secondary School in Barrie.

The $2.5 million civil suit names the school board and a principal, who according to the claim was told of the affair by the boy's mother but did nothing.

The 13-page statement of claim describes how the grade 9 student and teacher would have sex in locked portables while school was going on. It also claims she would invite her alleged lover's friends to her apartment so they

could have sex with their girlfriends.

"The teacher has been removed from the school and any class and any contact with students," reveals Michael O'Keefe of the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board.

"It's important for people to remember that these are allegations that have been made and we are conducting a full investigation into these allegations."

Former students of the teacher described her as likeable.

"She was a cool teacher, she got along with a lot of people there," said Alan Symes. "Everyone seemed to like her. She had good communications with kids there."

The teacher is now a librarian at a new school.

Barrie police are looking into the case, but haven't laid charges yet, saying the investigation is still in the preliminary stages.


Okay.... so this guy's sueing his former teacher for having what I'm assuming is consensual sex? Is it just me? Or is the world getting dumber by the day???

(Oh, in case you're wondering, this took place in Barrie, Ontario, Canada.)

Thoughts?

You can actually sue for statatuory rape?

Okay.... so this guy's sueing his former teacher for having what I'm assuming is consensual sex? Is it just me? Or is the world getting dumber by the day???

Thoughts?Not just you. Then again, I can guess why it's happening.

The fucker bragged to his drunk friends about how he nailed his old teacher, they didn't believe him & because of the beer, it turned into a bet. Now he's trying to prove it & win the bet in any way he can.

I mean.. It has to be something like that, right? People don't seriously sue eahother over sex, right?

Can I file a lawsuit against these party pooping money grubbers for spoiling it for everyone in the future wanting to have sex with hot liberal arts graduate teachers.

I think we should take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. :)

You can actually sue for statatuory rape?

of course you can

why he would bother suing a woman who cant possibly have any money to pay a substantial judgement i dont know. seems like a big waste of time to me.

or maybe its to bring enough publicity to the whole thing that other school districts and libraries will know not to hire her to work with children.

You can actually sue for statatuory rape?

Well in Canada the age of consent is 14, so he'd have already been that age when got to high school.

I can't say its statutory rape, and plus, its been goin on for 4 years.

Video and article here (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_7263.aspx).




Okay.... so this guy's sueing his former teacher for having what I'm assuming is consensual sex? Is it just me? Or is the world getting dumber by the day???

Thoughts?

Whoa...I'm assuming this guy wasn't raped, so what the fuck is he on about?

Okay.... so this guy's sueing his former teacher for having what I'm assuming is consensual sex? Is it just me? Or is the world getting dumber by the day???
He wasn't old enough to consent at the time, so it wasn't "consensual sex", but, in fact, "statutory rape sex", which is considered to be both illegal and unhealthy by the government of the US.
Just because he had a working penis doesn't make him any less a victim than a woman would be in the same situation.

The question remains: Was she hot?

Just because he had a working penis doesn't make him any less a victim than a woman would be in the same situation.

Well that is double standards in the first place.

*prepares to become very very very rich*

"Ohhhhh Kat?!"

http://www.freedomdive.com/webboard/html/emoticons/ooh.gif

Sounds like bullshit. His mother and the school board knew about it, but it carried on for 4 years and he's only sueing now?

Well that is double standards in the first place.
Apparently this is a Canadian thing (oops), so the sex was legal at the time, and that does move this case into the land of the blatantly insane.
Your honor, I move that my self-righteous indignation be struck from the record.

*prepares to become very very very Deat*

"Ohhhhh Kat?!"

http://www.freedomdive.com/webboard/html/emoticons/ooh.gifFixed!
Hahahahaha!

He wasn't old enough to consent at the time, so it wasn't "consensual sex", but, in fact, "statutory rape sex", which is considered to be both illegal and unhealthy by the government of the US.
Just because he had a working penis doesn't make him any less a victim than a woman would be in the same situation.

Except that this was in Canada, in which, unless he was a child prodigy, or the Canadians number their grades oddly, he was probably of legal age.

Still ethical/legal issues with having a student and a teacher screw, but statutory rape isn't one of them.

Well in Canada the age of consent is 14, so he'd have already been that age when got to high school.

I can't say its statutory rape, and plus, its been goin on for 4 years.

im not up on canadian law but id guess that there is a good chance that its illegal for a teacher to have sex with an underage student no matter what the general age of consent it.

I don't see what his problem is. I'd hump some of my teachers.

I don't see what his problem is. I'd hump some of my teachers.

lol

I think this guy is insecure/ugly/lonely/bored and wants to bragg about having had sex with his hot teacher.

That, or his mom made him sue her.

What a lucky bastard, he gets to have sex with his female teacher (for four years) and then decides he deserves money on the side. Hey, I deserve some portion of that money because reading this story has affected me also :D .

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-ye5plxkYrg (Nice :p )

Video and article here (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_7263.aspx).




Okay.... so this guy's sueing his former teacher for having what I'm assuming is consensual sex? Is it just me? Or is the world getting dumber by the day???

(Oh, in case you're wondering, this took place in Barrie, Ontario, Canada.)

Thoughts?
must've been bad sex.

I was googling the story, and I found this: http://torontosun.com/News/2007/01/27/3459840-sun.html

1st, what's up with that family?

And second, "The relationship continued after graduation and the teacher spent weekends with the twin at Fanshawe College in London where the sex continued, the claim states.
"The abuse suffered by the plaintiff has had a devastating effect on him," states the claim."

So it was devastating, yet the student continued the relationship after he graduated. My guess is she broke up with him and he wants revenge.

We need to start admitting that there is a difference between men and women. When this was going on I'll bet this guy was high-fiving all of his friends and is probably still bragging about this at bars. I gotta wonder why this guy is suing now. I'll bet he's a complete loser and has no money and no job and just needs the cash so he can get some more crack.

This probably isn't about underage sex. This is about the teacher violating the terms of her employment. I presume it would the teacher's contract has a clause about not having non-platonic relationships with students... especially as it was a catholic school. Everyone knows they go nuts about celibacy and abstinence.

must've been bad sex.I've had bad sex. Didn't make me sue people for 2.5 mill. I'm not even sure I think that'd be a reasonable compensation for having one's knob bitten off, but either way, this was just sex.

Fixed!
Hahahahaha!

*sues Kat for abuse of power*

This probably isn't about underage sex. This is about the teacher violating the terms of her employment. I presume it would the teacher's contract has a clause about not having non-platonic relationships with students... especially as it was a catholic school. Everyone knows they go nuts about celibacy and abstinence.

No, if he's suing then he is saying that he was damaged by the affiar. He can't win a case against her because she violated her contract with the school.

I've had bad sex. Didn't make me sue people for 2.5 mill. I'm not even sure I think that'd be a reasonable compensation for having one's knob bitten off, but either way, this was just sex.



You have had your knob bitten off?



:eek:

No, if he's suing then he is saying that he was damaged by the affiar. He can't win a case against her because she violated her contract with the school.Bah, the guy's got more money than sense. No one will ever have sex with him again.

"Hey, weren't you guy who sued someone for having sex with you... um... bye..." *girl disapears in a puff of smoke*

You have had your knob bitten off?



:eek:So sad I can't answer in a high-pitched voice :p

But no, I just meant that bad sex doesn't warrent that kind of civil suit. Probably not even if it did involve getting bits chewed off.

Nice.

...bits chewed off.

*shivers* :p

Bah, the guy's got more money than sense. No one will ever have sex with him again.

"Hey, weren't you guy who sued someone for having sex with you... um... bye..." *girl disapears in a puff of smoke*

hahahahaha! I didn't even thinak about that! What a dumbass!:p

Incidentally, portable classroom?

Back on topicish.

I suppose he could argue that she distracted him from his school work, thus causing his grades to plummet, and prevent him from getting into a good college. Thus he couldn't get a high-paying job and she ruined his entire life.

Of course, it's still bullshit if it was consensual.

I'm guessing that, whatever Canada's age of consent may be, he's alleging that he was too young to consent properly, and/or that she took advantage of her position of authority over him. (And, honestly, especially if he was 14 when the sexual contact occurred, he probably has a pretty decent case. Heck, college professors are generally strongly discouraged or outright banned from sleeping with students. Does anyone really think it's not immensely creepy when high school teachers screw 9th graders?)

Oh, and please, people, enough with the "hurr hurr hurr, it's not rape if the rapist is hawt" comments. Whether you believe the boy to have been capable of consent is relevant. Whether you believe the teacher took unfair advantage of him is relevant. Whether you believe this case in general to have merit is relevant. Whether any of the parties involved is attractive is manifestly not relevant. Okay? :rolleyes:

I can't get the video to work. It stops a few seconds in. Is she hot?

I just came on to this page, and...WTF?

This guy should have gotten his knob bitten off. Hey, it's cruel but at least he can't reproduce then.

We need to start admitting that there is a difference between men and women.

Indeed. If we had been talking about a male teacher having sex with a girl student people here would most likely be far angrier at the teacher.

In any case, Canada probably has laws against teacher-pupil relationships for underaged children; even if the general age of consent has alreaddy been reached - just like many other western countries.

I just came on to this page, and...WTF?

Wipe it up!

( Does anyone really think it's not immensely creepy when high school teachers screw 9th graders?)Not when the look like this:

http://www.lostcolonyentertainment.com/images/teacher2.jpg

Oh, and please, people, enough with the "hurr hurr hurr, it's not rape if the rapist is hawt" comments. Whether you believe the boy to have been capable of consent is relevant. Whether you believe the teacher took unfair advantage of him is relevant. Whether you believe this case in general to have merit is relevant. Whether any of the parties involved is attractive is manifestly not relevant. Okay? :rolleyes:

You're a chick, ha?

I'm guessing that, whatever Canada's age of consent may be, he's alleging that he was too young to consent properly, and/or that she took advantage of her position of authority over him. (And, honestly, especially if he was 14 when the sexual contact occurred, he probably has a pretty decent case. Heck, college professors are generally strongly discouraged or outright banned from sleeping with students. Does anyone really think it's not immensely creepy when high school teachers screw 9th graders?)


Eleventh grade. Should the teacher use her job over this? Probably. Well, she already did, but...

Should the guy get to sue her? No.

I wish I could bang my English teacher. She's actually a babe.

Incidentally, portable classroom?

Back on topicish.

I suppose he could argue that she distracted him from his school work, thus causing his grades to plummet, and prevent him from getting into a good college. Thus he couldn't get a high-paying job and she ruined his entire life.

Of course, it's still bullshit if it was consensual.

According to the article I linked, he says she did some of his work for him, so I doubt it.

Oh, and please, people, enough with the "hurr hurr hurr, it's not rape if the rapist is hawt" comments. Whether you believe the boy to have been capable of consent is relevant. Whether you believe the teacher took unfair advantage of him is relevant. Whether you believe this case in general to have merit is relevant. Whether any of the parties involved is attractive is manifestly not relevant. Okay? :rolleyes:If this ran from he was 14 'til he was 18, then no. Not enuff with the laughs.

Sure, we don't know enough details to say anything terribly meaningful, but going by the info in the OP, it's entirely fucking unreasonable to think the guy isn't just trying to get rich quick at the expense of an ex.

For an adult to fuck a 14 year old is fucking nasty, at least on the face of it, but in this case the kids mum & the school authorities knew about it & seems to have agreed that the boy was mature enough to consent. And 14 years olds no doubt can be. So what the hell's the big deal?

Should the guy get to sue her? No.

Make it a male teacher and a girl. Does your opinion stay the same ?

Make it a male teacher and a girl. Does your opinion stay the same ?Mine would.

Make it a male teacher and a girl. Does your opinion stay the same ?

No, but men and women are different.

Not when the look like this:

http://www.lostcolonyentertainment.com/images/teacher2.jpg

I assure you, if I got raped by Brad Pitt tomorrow, I'd be just as upset as if I got raped by a smelly homeless man with no teeth. The fact that you don't see this as true mostly indicates that you have never been raped.

You're a chick, ha?

I am female. I am also sane enough to believe that sexually assaulting people is bad, even if you look pretty while you're doing it.

If this ran from he was 14 'til he was 18, then no. Not enuff with the laughs.

Sure, we don't know enough details to say anything terribly meaningful, but going by the info in the OP, it's entirely fucking unreasonable to think the guy isn't just trying to get rich quick at the expense of an ex.

For an adult to fuck a 14 year old is fucking nasty, at least on the face of it, but in this case the kids mum & the school authorities knew about it & seems to have agreed that the boy was mature enough to consent. And 14 years olds no doubt can be. So what the hell's the big deal?

See, I just figure I don't know enough to know what, exactly, the big deal is. I figure that's up to judges and juries with access to all the information to figure out. It just sounds like there is a real possibility, at least, that this is not a frivolous suit.

And, either way, what any of the people involved look like is manifestly irrelevant.

I am female. I am also sane enough to believe that sexually assaulting people is bad, even if you look pretty while you're doing it.

... The apocaplypse must be near. Poliwanacraca and myself agree on something related to sex...

*snip *



I am female. I am also sane enough to believe that sexually assaulting people is bad, even if you look pretty while you're doing it.

But this guy seems to have been old enough to consent by Canadian
standards.

And trying to convince us males that a "hot babe" raping some boy is a bad thing, well, good luck :p .
That South Park thing someone posted describes it quite well.

Make it a male teacher and a girl. Does your opinion stay the same ?

Yes, if it wasn't rape.

... The apocaplypse must be near. Poliwanacraca and myself agree on something related to sex...

Heh. Sadly, I don't remember any sex-related posts of yours, so I'm not entirely sure why the apocolypse is coming. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. :)

I assure you, if I got raped by Brad Pitt tomorrow, I'd be just as upset as if I got raped by a smelly homeless man with no teeth. The fact that you don't see this as true mostly indicates that you have never been raped.



I am female. I am also sane enough to believe that sexually assaulting people is bad, even if you look pretty while you're doing it.

And from a women I understand all that. I'm not a woman, though, and I'm telling you that the woman in that picture I posted could not rape me. As I said, men and women are very different. Sex is not always as personal with us. Sometimes, in fact a lot of times, it's just about getting laid by some smoking hot chick.

And from a women I understand all that. I'm not a woman, though, and I'm telling you that the woman in that picture I posted could not rape me. As I said, men and women are very different. Sex is not always as personal with us. Sometimes, in fact a lot of times, it's just about getting laid by some smoking hot chick.

Interesting. I was unaware that every male in the universe was identical to you. You learn something new every day, I guess!

Interesting. I was unaware that every male in the universe was identical to you. You learn something new every day, I guess!

I didn't say that. Sorry you have to be that reductionist and misunderstand the point.

Unless this guy was a complete weakling physically, she could not have forced herself on him because one of th ways in which men and women differ is that men are much stronger than women. Not just a little stronger, but a lot stronger - and faster. That means that this guy must have consented.

Another way in which men and women differ is that for women sex really is much more personal. The fact is that women have all the power sexually and are the ones who decide when and if sex is going to occur - with the exception of when rape is occuring.

Also, there is much more social stigma attached to women when they have sex than to men. This translates into both more social consequences and more personal consequences when sex occurs.

The fact is that for women there is a lot more at stake. Men will have sex for no other reason than because it is available from a physically acceptable. female. Women generally put a lot more into it than that.

On the one hand, I find this hilarious.

On the other hand, when one person is in a position of significant power over the other person (manager/employee, teacher/student), I believe the law states that consent is impossible.

I didn't say that. Sorry you have to be that reductionist and misunderstand the point.

Unless this guy was a complete weakling physically, she could not have forced herself on him because one of th ways in which men and women differ is that men are much stronger than women. Not just a little stronger, but a lot stronger - and faster. That means that this guy must have consented.

Another way in which men and women differ is that for women sex really is much more personal. The fact is that women have all the power sexually and are the ones who decide when and if sex is going to occur - with the exception of when rape is occuring.

Also, there is much more social stigma attached to women when they have sex than to men. This translates into both more social consequences and more personal consequences when sex occurs.

The fact is that for women there is a lot more at stake. Men will have sex for no other reason than because it is available from a physically acceptable. female. Women generally put a lot more into it than that.

Let's make this very simple.

Here are some ways that blonde woman in the picture you posted could rape a man:

She could hold a gun to his head.
She could hold a knife to his throat.
She could be his boss, and threaten to fire him unless he slept with her.
She could be his teacher, and threaten to fail him unless he slept with her.
She could bring a powerful friend to restrain him.
She could simply be strong enough to restrain him herself.
She could give him a sedative, and engage in sexual activity with him while he was asleep.
She could give him a sedative, tie him up, and engage in sexual activity with him while he was awake.

There are plenty of other possibilities, but I'm hoping you're getting the general idea here.

And speaking of "general" ideas, you seem to have missed my overwhelmingly obvious point that generalizations about what all men or all women do are colossally stupid. Many women will happily have sex with anything that moves. Many men are asexual, gay, celibate, or faithful to only one woman. Many women love casual sex; many men do not. The fact that, on average, more men are up for casual sex with women they merely find physically attractive than the reverse demonstrably does not indicate that men as a whole "will have sex for no reason than because it is available from a physically acceptable female."

I didn't say that. Sorry you have to be that reductionist and misunderstand the point.

Unless this guy was a complete weakling physically, she could not have forced herself on him because one of th ways in which men and women differ is that men are much stronger than women. Not just a little stronger, but a lot stronger - and faster. That means that this guy must have consented.

"have sex with me or I will give you an F for my course and make sure you never get into a good college."

Is that not coercive? You think rape has to be about force, it need not be, it can also be about coersion. It can be about one in a position of power using that power to coerce another.

Hell, if that woman had been a COLLEGE professor and her male student was 20 years old, that still would have been enough to get her fired.

Rape can be a lot more than just force, and your assumption that any straight male would willingly fuck any hot woman with blonde hair is insulting in the extreme.

No, but men and women are different.
You're right, a man who is raped has to suffer the additional humiliation of people saying things like "It wasn't rape, you wanted it because you're a D00D!", and therefore needs a greater level of legal protection than a woman.

Let's make this very simple.


She could hold a gun to his head.
She could hold a knife to his throat.
She could be his boss, and threaten to fire him unless he slept with her.
She could be his teacher, and threaten to fail him unless he slept with her.
She could bring a powerful friend to restrain him.
She could simply be strong enough to restrain him herself.
She could give him a sedative, and engage in sexual activity with him while he was asleep.
She could give him a sedative, tie him up, and engage in sexual activity with him while he was awake.

There are plenty of other possibilities, but I'm hoping you're getting the general idea here.



None of which happened in the case in point or in the case involving the teacher who's picture I posted and happens so rarely in the real world that I would bet that you can go to every search engine on the internet and find not one single story about it happening. Go ahead. I'll check back in a few hours and see if you found one. Women don't have to do that because, as everyone who lives in the real world knows, if a women just wants to get laid she'll have no problem. The opposite isn't true.

You're right, a man who is raped has to suffer the additional humiliation of people saying things like "It wasn't rape, you wanted it because you're a D00D!", and therefore needs a greater level of legal protection than a woman.

yeah, that happens all the time. ;)

None of which happened in the case in point or in the case involving the teacher who's picture I posted and happens so rarely in the real world that I would bet that you can go to every search engine on the internet and find not one single story about it happening. Go ahead. I'll check back in a few hours and see if you found one. Women don't have to do that because, as everyone who lives in the real world knows, if a women just wants to get laid she'll have no problem. The opposite isn't true.

I see, I understnd yur thinking. It's "this woman is so hot she could get sex anytime, so why would she need to go out and rape someone whe there are so many willing men who would have sex with her". That about right?

I see your problem. You're under the naive assumption that rape is about sex.

That's cute.

Hopelessly misguided, but cute.

I see, I understnd yur thinking. It's "this woman is so hot she could get sex anytime, so why would she need to go out and rape someone whe there are so many willing men who would have sex with her". That about right?Are you denying that's true?

I see your problem. You're under the naive assumption that rape is about sex.

That's cute.

Hopelessly misguided, but cute.

:confused: I'm trying to see the connection between what I posted and what you posted here.

Are you denying that's true?

:confused: I'm trying to see the connection between what I posted and what you posted here.

You made the connection yourself. You essentially argued that it couldn't be rape because she wouldn't NEED to rape anyone (being a woman, she could have whomever she wanted). But it's not about being hot, and having your pick. It's about rape, and the inherent power issues that are central to rape. Power...not sex.

You seem to think that men rape because they can't get sex otherwise.

Are you denying that's true?

Let me make absolute 100% sure I know what you're talking about. You claim that a rapist rapes because a rapist desires sex, and an individual wo canget regular, frequent sex whenever he or she wishes will not rape?

The beautiful woman would not rape the man because the beautiful woman can go out and get whatever sex she wanted, legally?

Is that your position? That rape is about sex, because rape occures when the rapist has an overwhelming desire for sex and no legal outlet?

Is that your position?

Make it a male teacher and a girl. Does your opinion stay the same ?

If it was consensual (and I have seen nothing that says it was rape) then yes. She shouldn't get to sue the male teacher either.

You made the connection yourself. You essentially argued that it couldn't be rape because she wouldn't NEED to rape anyone (being a woman, she could have whomever she wanted). But it's not about being hot, and having your pick. It's about rape, and the inherent power issues that are central to rape. Power...not sex.No, I said she couldn't rape ME. If that woman wanted to have sex I'd be more than willing. I'll bet you would, too. ;) In the story in the OP, this guy kept on doing her even after he graduated and went to college.

You seem to think that men rape because they can't get sex otherwise.

And you seem to think that they don't. That's a very narrow definition of rape. Violent stranger rape I think happens most often because the perp is a mysoginist and wants to assert his physical power over a women. Drunk frat boy date rape I think happens because the perp is too horny to control himself, lacks empathy and doesn't have any respect for a woman's right to say no. There are probably an almost infinate range of variations between the two. But we're talking about women here, not men.

No, I said she couldn't rape ME. If that woman wanted to have sex I'd be more than willing. I'll bet you would, too. ;)

First off, Neesika is a woman.

Second off, that's not what you said, at all. You said:

Unless this guy was a complete weakling physically, she could not have forced herself on him because one of th ways in which men and women differ is that men are much stronger than women. Not just a little stronger, but a lot stronger - and faster. That means that this guy must have consented.

If they had sex, and she was uable to physical force him, it must have been consentual. Meaning any tme a man has sex with a woman, ANY TIME, and force was not involved, it could not have been rape

If it was consensual (and I have seen nothing that says it was rape) then yes. She shouldn't get to sue the male teacher either.

Consent isn't valid in certain situations, and rightly so. Take, for example, a drug addict, getting supplied by her doctor. (real case) The doctor cuts her off, she goes to another one who agrees to exchange prescriptions for sex. The woman is desperate, she wants to quit, but the doctor offers no advice, just the drugs. She consents, and then sues him for sexual battery. She wins, because the doctor was found to have a fiduciary duty to her. He was in a position of power, his decisions stemming from that position had a detrimental affect on her. As a fiduciary, he had the responsibility to put her needs (for treatment) over his own (his need for sex). Rape, even though she was a consenting adult. Capacity (was she capable of consent being under the influence) didn't even need to be raised.

First off, Neesika is a woman.

Second off, that's not what you said, at all. You said:



If they had sex, and she was uable to physical force him, it must have been consentual. Meaning any tme a man has sex with a woman, ANY TIME, and force was not involved, it could not have been rape

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist that a woman can't find a way to force a man to have sex with her absent physical force and I admit that I wasn't clear about that. I'm saying that in the real world that doesn't tend to happen too much because men are far too willing too engage in it absent coersion and women both don't need to force a man to do it because she can get it anytime and also don't tend to have the same kind of power/control issues that menifest themselves in men through rape and other kinds of sexual violence. I don't think women feel like they've exerted some form of control over a man by forcing him to have sex with her and I don't think a woman takes her anger against men out by forcing sex on them. I think if women have those kinds of issues with men that they'll manifest in some other way.

Consent isn't valid in certain situations, and rightly so. Take, for example, a drug addict, getting supplied by her doctor. (real case) The doctor cuts her off, she goes to another one who agrees to exchange prescriptions for sex. The woman is desperate, she wants to quit, but the doctor offers no advice, just the drugs. She consents, and then sues him for sexual battery. She wins, because the doctor was found to have a fiduciary duty to her. He was in a position of power, his decisions stemming from that position had a detrimental affect on her. As a fiduciary, he had the responsibility to put her needs (for treatment) over his own (his need for sex). Rape, even though she was a consenting adult. Capacity (was she capable of consent being under the influence) didn't even need to be raised.

Now, are you saying that under a Canadian legal definition, this was rape?

First off, Neesika is a woman.



I actually thought I was replying to a post from you.

Consent isn't valid in certain situations, and rightly so. Take, for example, a drug addict, getting supplied by her doctor. (real case) The doctor cuts her off, she goes to another one who agrees to exchange prescriptions for sex. The woman is desperate, she wants to quit, but the doctor offers no advice, just the drugs. She consents, and then sues him for sexual battery. She wins, because the doctor was found to have a fiduciary duty to her. He was in a position of power, his decisions stemming from that position had a detrimental affect on her. As a fiduciary, he had the responsibility to put her needs (for treatment) over his own (his need for sex). Rape, even though she was a consenting adult. Capacity (was she capable of consent being under the influence) didn't even need to be raised.

Sounds like prostitution to me.

I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist that a woman can't find a way to force a man to have sex with her absent physical force and I admit that I wasn't clear about that. I'm saying that in the real world that doesn't tend to happen too much because men are far too willing too engage in it absent coersion and women both don't need to force a man to do it because she can get it anytime and also don't tend to have the same kind of power/control issues that menifest themselves in men through rape and other kinds of sexual violence. I don't think women feel like they've exerted some form of control over a man by forcing him to have sex with her and I don't think a woman takes her anger against men out by forcing sex on them. I think if women have those kinds of issues with men that they'll manifest in some other way.


so, let me make sure I understand this. Beautiful women never, or very rarely rape, because in women the power dynamic that is present in male rapists isn't there, so it would leve these beautiful women raping not for power, but simply for sex, and beautiful women can get sex when they want.

So rape can either be about sex or power, beautiful women, being women, don't seek that kind of power, and beautiful women, being beautiful, can get plentiful sex, leaving beatiful women no reason to rape?

Well that's a lot of horse sht...

None of which happened in the case in point or in the case involving the teacher who's picture I posted and happens so rarely in the real world that I would bet that you can go to every search engine on the internet and find not one single story about it happening. Go ahead. I'll check back in a few hours and see if you found one. Women don't have to do that because, as everyone who lives in the real world knows, if a women just wants to get laid she'll have no problem. The opposite isn't true.

Are you kidding me?

The stats I've seen are that women commit about 10% of all reported sexual offenses in the US, and about 30% of all reported sexual offenses in Canada. Yeah, that's clearly something that happens "so rarely in the real world." :rolleyes:

(Not to mention the absolute absurdity of your suggestion that anyone who can easily find sexual partners cannot be a rapist. When I was sexually assaulted, it was by a guy who had broken up with me. Getting to have sex with me was rather manifestly not the point.)

Sounds like prostitution to me.

so prostitutes can never be raped? Go read what she said about fiduciary duty again, very very carefully. The doctor has a duty to not place his or her needs above the needs of the patient. The doctor who does so has breeched that duty. The patient who is harmed by that breech can seek remedy.

That's how tort claims work.

Now, are you saying that under a Canadian legal definition, this was rape?

This was sexual battery, and she sued him and won. No criminal charges were brought other than those relating to writing invalid prescriptions.

But yes, it was rape.

Think of it this way. You've been charged of a criminal offence. The judge says, "I'll go easy on you if you sleep with me". The judge is a beautiful woman. You figure, okay, it won't be so bad I suppose, but you do it because you don't think you have a choice. You consent.

Rape?

It's an abuse of power, and it invalidates consent. Sex without consent is by definition rape. Could you meet her after and have sex? As long as that in no way affected your trial, probably.

Okay.... so this guy's sueing his former teacher for having what I'm assuming is consensual sex? Is it just me? Or is the world getting dumber by the day???

(Oh, in case you're wondering, this took place in Barrie, Ontario, Canada.)

Thoughts?

It's right up there with Marie Antoinette's "Let Them Eat Cake," or a fat kid taking one bite out of a hamburger and throwing the rest away in a third-world country stricken by famine.

Some people are too fucking self-absorbed to know when they have something good going for them and need to be adminstered therapeutic beatings. Several times.

so prostitutes can never be raped?

hahahahahah!!!!!!


That's funny that you would even think of reading that into what I just posted! Your love of feeling righteous makes you see things that aren't even there.


hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Oh, man. that was stupd.

Eh, hem.

No, I said that I don't think the woman in ths story she posted was raped. I think she prostituted herself for drugs.

On the contrary. I don't have any stats to prove it, but I'd bet that prostitutes are probably the most common victims of rape. But let me ask you this, if a prostitue is addicted tio crack does that mean that every john she has sex with is guilty of rape?

Sounds like prostitution to me.
That was argued, and rebutted. He was a doctor, a professional, with a particular responsibility to his patients, and a certain power to make important decisions for them. Much like a teacher, or a professor or a judge. This was not some drug dealer on the street, and yes, that matters.

Some people are too fucking self-absorbed to know when they have something good going for them and need to be adminstered therapeutic beatings. Several times.

Right, because if my drop-dead gorgeous Contracts prof wanted to f*ck me, I should be overjoyed, even if he threatened to fail me otherwise? And if I complain after, I'm an idiot who just doesn't know how good I have it? Or is that different because I'm a woman, and only women can be raped?

so prostitutes can never be raped? Go read what she said about fiduciary duty again, very very carefully. The doctor has a duty to not place his or her needs above the needs of the patient. The doctor who does so has breeched that duty. The patient who is harmed by that breech can seek remedy.

That's how tort claims work.

Sorry, quoted you before you went back and edited that. The doctor should lose his license to practice medicine because he comited a serious ethical violation, he had a duty to help her bat her addiction, not use her addiction to his advantage, but I don't believe he raped her. She could have found her drugs from another doctor - or maybe even quit.

No, I said that I don't think the woman in ths story she posted was raped. I think she prostituted herself for drugs.

to a person who had power over her and used that power to coerce her against her will into having sex.

And why, exactly, do you not see that as rape?

If you were infected with a deadly virus, and I alone had the cure and I told you that you had to have sex with me to get it, is that rape?

No, I said that I don't think the woman in ths story she posted was raped. I think she prostituted herself for drugs.

On the contrary. I don't have any stats to prove it, but I'd bet that prostitutes are probably the most common victims of rape. But let me ask you this, if a prostitue is addicted tio crack does that mean that every john she has sex with is guilty of rape?

Is a john a fiduciary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary)?

That was argued, and rebutted. He was a doctor, a professional, with a particular responsibility to his patients, and a certain power to make important decisions for them. Much like a teacher, or a professor or a judge. This was not some drug dealer on the street, and yes, that matters.

Which is eaxctly why he should be prosecuted and lose his license - but he didn't rape her. He should have treated her, not used her addiction for sex.

Sorry, quoted you before you went back and edited that. The doctor should lose his license to practice medicine because he comited a serious ethical violation, he had a duty to help her bat her addiction, not use her addiction to his advantage, but I don't believe he raped her. She could have found her drugs from another doctor - or maybe even quit.

your definition of rape is perhaps not entirely consistant with modern legal thought.

Moreover, in a general sense, you actually help prove a point of mine.

Let's say it's notrape, let us say, for the sake of argument, that this was not a criminal rape.

But the doctor violated his fidiciary duty, and in doing so potentially harmed the patient. This is certainly a lawsuit worthy act.

Which does further my point that the teacher's acts, even if they weren't raped, may well be worthy of a lawsuit, despite the clamoring of "well he wasn't raped so he has nothing to sue for".

Is a john a fiduciary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary)?

I know what fiduciary means, but that's beside the point. I'd like to see an actual story about this case and see if the courts found him guilty of rape. As a matter in fact, it just occured to me that this was a civil case so it wasn't even criminal. Was this doctor found criminally liable for rape or was he found civily liable for violating the terms of his license to practice medicine?

Except that this was in Canada, in which, unless he was a child prodigy, or the Canadians number their grades oddly, he was probably of legal age.

Still ethical/legal issues with having a student and a teacher screw, but statutory rape isn't one of them.
It's an abuse of power situation: which is pretty much illegal everywhere. Like if you had sex with one of your step-parents even if you were over the age of consent.

Personally, I don't see why any guy would complain about sex with their teacher - maybe I've just been listening to too much Van Halen. And personally, I think a lot of what counts as rape nowdays is stupid (like the Doctor example above).

Rape should be rape. Non-consensual. Not "I consented but..."

to a person who had power over her and used that power to coerce her against her will into having sex.

And why, exactly, do you not see that as rape?

If you were infected with a deadly virus, and I alone had the cure and I told you that you had to have sex with me to get it, is that rape?

There's a whole world in between being addicted to drugs and having the power of life and death over you. It would be just as ridiculous for me to ask you, "What if I had a Snickers bar and a knew you really liked Snickers and I told you you can only have it if you blow me?"

Rape should be rape. Non-consensual. Not "I consented but..."

rape is about non consent. By definition, aquiesence as a result of coersion is not consent.

But this guy seems to have been old enough to consent by Canadian standards.

Just to clear up this whole "by Canadian standards" thing that everyone is so fixed on in regards to age of consents. Age of consent is 14 in Canada...if both people are under 18. And seeing as she was teaching at a highschool, she wouldn't have been 18. Therefore he was underaged, and could not have legally consented.

He's still a complete idiot. He was obviously enjoying it if it went on for so long. He's just seen all the teachers losing all of these law suits over sexual scandals and wants a piece of the financial pie.


"Hey, weren't you guy who sued someone for having sex with you... um... bye..." *girl disapears in a puff of smoke*

All I can say is that I hate when that happens. It leaves the room smelling like smoke for days.

There's a whole world in between being addicted to drugs and having the power of life and death over you. It would be just as ridiculous for me to ask you, "What if I had a Snickers bar and a knew you really liked Snickers and I told you you can only have it if you blow me?"

oh, gee, is that yu admitting that the level of coersion, and thus the line as to what constitutes rape is situational and somewhat vague, and not simply "she didn't say no"?

*prepares to become very very very rich*

"Ohhhhh Kat?!"

http://www.freedomdive.com/webboard/html/emoticons/ooh.gif

In your DREAMS, Fleischman!

http://www.paramountcomedy.es/pc.es/images/series/nx/maggie01.jpg

to a person who had power over her and used that power to coerce her against her will into having sex.

And why, exactly, do you not see that as rape?

If you were infected with a deadly virus, and I alone had the cure and I told you that you had to have sex with me to get it, is that rape?

I think he wanted sex from her and used her addiction to get it. I think that he should lose his license to practice medicine as a result. I think she wanted drugs from him and used sex to get it. I don't think she should suffer any legal consequences as a result basically because I think prostitution should be legal, but I obviously think she nees to make better choices in life.

oh, gee, is that yu admitting that the level of coersion, and thus the line as to what constitutes rape is situational and somewhat vague, and not simply "she didn't say no"?

I never argued otherwise. I'm talking about this case, not all cases. Obviously if a person is under the threat of death and is forced to have sex with the person who issues that threat then it is rape. This doctor didn't threaten to kill her.

I know what fiduciary means, but that's beside the point. I don't think you do, if you'd go on to claim that it's beside the point. It is exactly the point. This is not a duty-with-options. You can not consent to a breach of fiduciary duty, it's nonsensical.


I'd like to see an actual story about this case and see if the courts found him guilty of rape. As a matter in fact, it just occured to me that this was a civil case so it wasn't even criminal. Just occurred to you? I made that clear from the outset. As for the case itself, it's Norberg v. Wynrib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberg_v._Wynrib).



Was this doctor found criminally liable for rape or was he found civilly liable for violating the terms of his license to practice medicine?

He was found criminally liable for 'double-prescribing'. He was found guilty of sexual battery in the civil case. I don't know if criminal charges for sexual assault followed or not.

The Supreme Court of Canada judged him to be a rapist. Period. Criminally or civilly shouldn't matter.

There's a whole world in between being addicted to drugs and having the power of life and death over you. It would be just as ridiculous for me to ask you, "What if I had a Snickers bar and a knew you really liked Snickers and I told you you can only have it if you blow me?"

Sorry mister "I know what a fiduciary is"...no go.

I never argued otherwise. I'm talking about this case, not all cases. Obviously if a person is under the threat of death and is forced to have sex with the person who issues that threat then it is rape. This doctor didn't threaten to kill her.

There are different kinds of force than death threats, and the courts are well aware of this, and take them into account. Your definition of rape as being 'under threat of death' is patently ridiculous.

Right, because if my drop-dead gorgeous Contracts prof wanted to f*ck me, I should be overjoyed, even if he threatened to fail me otherwise? And if I complain after, I'm an idiot who just doesn't know how good I have it? Or is that different because I'm a woman, and only women can be raped?

Thank you for staying on topic. :rolleyes:

The news article says nothing about the boy being coerced or threatened physically or academically for the sex, and since there is no other evidence or allegation that rape was involved in this affair I still stand by my assertion that the kid had something good and just spat on it.

He wasn't raped or blackmailed, he enjoyed the sex of his own free will then bit the hand that fed him. End of story.

Since the thread has been hijacked to cover rape, we need a definition of rape to make things crystal clear:

Rape, n. Any instance in which a person is forced or coerced into sexual activity against his or her will; v. To force or coerce someone into unwanted sexual activity.

Carry on.

See, I just figure I don't know enough to know what, exactly, the big deal is. I figure that's up to judges and juries with access to all the information to figure out. It just sounds like there is a real possibility, at least, that this is not a frivolous suit. And yet the reason there's even a police investegation into this, is apparently because he filed a civil suit. I'm really sorry mate, but this shit's just begging to be made fun of.And, either way, what any of the people involved look like is manifestly irrelevant.I have no idea. I didn't say anything about how the involved parties looked. I considered writing I would've appreciated a good fucking by one of my English teachers, because he was fucking hot, but I didn't even write that, so.. I can't how you got the impression I thought the 'pretty factor' was relevant.

Then again, perhaps we see this so differently because I've actually been a teenager & you somehow managed to avoid it. I dunno. All I can say is that on the face of it, it's fucking hillarious. Which does further my point that the teacher's acts, even if they weren't raped, may well be worthy of a lawsuit, despite the clamoring of "well he wasn't raped so he has nothing to sue for".What... You're saying that someone violating a work code should have his/her ass sued off in a civil suit by whomever he/she violated the work code with?

A mate & I once got nicked selling a stereo we'd stolen from some guy's home. Should I have filed a civil suit against my mate because he broke the law with me? EDIT: Actually I was Mr. Victim's age when it happened, so I suppose I should file a suit against my mate now, right?

Heh, it's completely fucked up. If it's rape, then it's a criminal matter. If it isn't rape, then the schoolboard (or whatever) might possibly file a suit against the teacher, if she's disinclined to accept getting the boot. But the ex boyfriend sure as hell don't have any reason to sue her for millions. It's just insane. Funny as hell though :p

Thank you for staying on topic. :rolleyes: It's entirely on topic, thanks.

The news article says nothing about the boy being coerced or threatened physically or academically for the sex, and since there is no other evidence or allegation that rape was involved in this affair I still stand by my assertion that the kid had something good and just spat on it. Because the article does not lay out all the evidence for you, it must be lacking? Really...so the Pickton trial is a farce because you don't get all the details in the media? We really have no idea what the triar of facts will find in this case. It has been successfully argued in the past that a teacher is a fiduciary in certain cases, and especially in regards to having intimate contact with a student. There are also statutory rape laws that would bring criminal liability to bear, regardles of his current age. So your BELIEF that this should not be a crime has no actual bearing on what the courts are going to say.

You have no evidence that he:

1) was able to consent
2) did so

When it comes to civil law, all he has to do is prove the sex occurred. She has to prove consent, and if consent is not a valid defence (ie, if she is found to be a fiduciary) then she's up shit creek, right there with your opinions on the matter.



He wasn't raped or blackmailed, he enjoyed the sex of his own free will then bit the hand that fed him. End of story.End of story is that you seem to think your opinion matters in this. Try again.

Heh, it's completely fucked up. If it's rape, then it's a criminal matter.

There is nothing precluding this from being an issue in both civil and criminal court. She CAN be tried for sexual assault AND sexual battery in two separate proceedings.

1) was able to consent
As age of consent is 14 in Canada, all we have to know is a) that he's over the age of 14 and b) not mentally retarded. If both conditions are satisfied, he's capable of consent.

2) did so
Yes, that's what the article doesn't cover, either.

Anyone up for traveling to the Ontario courtroom to settle the matter?

And yet the reason there's even a police investegation into this, is apparently because he filed a civil suit. I'm really sorry mate, but this shit's just begging to be made fun of.I have no idea. I didn't say anything about how the involved parties looked. I considered writing I would've appreciated a good fucking by one of my English teachers, because he was fucking hot, but I didn't even write that, so.. I can't how you got the impression I thought the 'pretty factor' was relevant.

As I recall, you quoted the section of my post stating that people's appearances were irrelevant. I wasn't clear whether your comments disagreeing with me applied to that or not, which is why my further elaboration on that topic was limited to a one-sentence coda.

Then again, perhaps we see this so differently because I've actually been a teenager & you somehow managed to avoid it. I dunno. All I can say is that on the face of it, it's fucking hillarious.

I'm afraid I have been a teenager, much as I would have liked to avoid it. I was pretty stupid and immature at the time, like most other teenagers, and if an adult (let alone an adult in a position of authority over me) had tried to have sex with me when I was 14, I don't believe I would have been qualified to give consent. Of course, it's also possible that I don't see anything "fucking hilarious" about someone claiming, rightly or wrongly, that someone took sexual advantage of them simply because that's not particularly funny.

It's an abuse of power situation: which is pretty much illegal everywhere. Like if you had sex with one of your step-parents even if you were over the age of consent.

Personally, I don't see why any guy would complain about sex with their teacher - maybe I've just been listening to too much Van Halen. And personally, I think a lot of what counts as rape nowdays is stupid (like the Doctor example above).

Rape should be rape. Non-consensual. Not "I consented but..."

Like I said, she should lose her job over this. (As she did)

And she should probably have trouble getting another one.

Nissse

Since the thread has been hijacked to cover rape, we need a definition of rape to make things crystal clear:

Rape, n. Any instance in which a person is forced or coerced into sexual activity against his or her will; v. To force or coerce someone into unwanted sexual activity.

Carry on.

Dictionaries won't help you here. This is alleged to have happened in Canada, so if you want criminal definitions, go to the Criminal Code. She could but up for a number of charges, sexual assault being the most obvious. In civil court, a sexual battery is defined as non-consensual sex. Period.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec273.1.html
273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

Where no consent obtained
(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity

As age of consent is 14 in Canada, all we have to know is a) that he's over the age of 14 and b) not mentally retarded. If both conditions are satisfied, he's capable of consent. It doesn't matter if he's over the age of 14 now, though it's likely he was older than that when it started. That does not mean his consent was automatically valid though, if she is found to be a fiduciary, or in a position of authority, using coercion.

I'll wait for the judgment...save the plane fare.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec153.html
"153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person..."

You forgot to destroy my argument with 153-2: (2) In this section, “young person” means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.
I'll attribute it to a momentary lapse. We thought you couldn't stay away from debate for too long, Sin. :p

You forgot to destroy my argument with 153-2:
I'll attribute it to a momentary lapse. We thought you couldn't stay away from debate for too long, Sin. :p

Meh, I'm also in the middle of writing a factum. Check what I posted instead.

By the way...who were you?

Lapse fixed :p ....I was going to make a point about statutory rape laws here, but figured it would go too far off track, since it's probably not the issue. Check what I posted instead.
That isn't nearly as useful, as there's no evidence the teacher actually abused her position of power -- at least none that's been provided to NSG's personal jury. You should have provided that plus 153, because 153 asserts that holding a position of power over a person between the ages of 14 and 18 one is sleeping with counts as abusing it.


By the way...who were you?
*points at join date*

I'm an original. :P However, there's a good deal of speculation on this, most commonly on the IRC #draftroom channel, although there they speculate more on my gender than on my old/new identity.

In effect: The people who know, already know. The people who don't know, won't find out. A lot like fundamentalist Christianity.

That isn't nearly as useful, as there's no evidence the teacher actually abused her position of power -- at least none that's been provided to NSG's personal jury. You should have provided that plus 153, because 153 asserts that holding a position of power over a person between the ages of 14 and 18 one is sleeping with counts as abusing it. All good points, but I've got too much pride to steal them and pass them off as my own just because I was rushed :)


*points at join date*

I'm an original. :P However, there's a good deal of speculation on this, most commonly on the IRC #draftroom channel, although there they speculate more on my gender than on my old/new identity.

In effect: The people who know, already know. The people who don't know, won't find out. A lot like fundamentalist Christianity.

Let me guess. You are close personal friends with another unknowable...a certain SmokeytheNSer...

So it appears to be settled that the boy was raped/sexually abused...
at least during the start of the relationship. If it went on for four years the boy would be of age of consent and out of highschool (well, you would think so at least) during the end of it.

So did this whole affair traumatize him or is he just out for the money?
Just speculating here...

So it appears to be settled that the boy was raped/sexually abused...
at least during the start of the relationship. If it went on for four years the boy would be of age of consent and out of highschool (well, you would think so at least) during the end of it.

So did this whole affair traumatize him or is he just out for the money?
Just speculating here...

Well we don't really know what's motivating him, but consider this.

Just from the amount of ridicule directed his way by people in this thread...imagine what kind of reaction he is probably getting constantly for 'complaining about getting to bang the teacher'.

Unless he's a real masochist, that would have been a pretty serious hurdle to overcome in order to pursue this.

All good points, but I've got too much pride to steal them and pass them off as my own just because I was rushed :)
I'm still the best at destroying my own arguments! No-one can ever match me at THAT! :p


Let me guess. You are close personal friends with another unknowable...a certain SmokeytheNSer...

Well, not exactly. *takes a drag*

Well we don't really know what's motivating him, but consider this.

Just from the amount of ridicule directed his way by people in this thread...imagine what kind of reaction he is probably getting constantly for 'complaining about getting to bang the teacher'.

Unless he's a real masochist, that would have been a pretty serious hurdle to overcome in order to pursue this.

Sure, that or he just didn't think things through. :p

... and perhaps we will never know his motives.

What now?

Sure, or he didn't just think things through. :p

... and perhaps we will never know.

What now?
*sigh* well, since PsychoticDan is offline, I guess we have to take a pause in the whole 'rape is about sex' and 'hot women can't rape men because men will automatically want to sleep with them' argument.

I'm still the best at destroying my own arguments! No-one can ever match me at THAT! :p

Well, not exactly. *takes a drag*

Weird how your posting style comes through so quickly.

So it appears to be settled that the boy was raped/sexually abused...
at least during the start of the relationship. If it went on for four years the boy would be of age of consent and out of highschool (well, you would think so at least) during the end of it.

So did this whole affair traumatize him or is he just out for the money?
Just speculating here...

He was of age of consent at the beginning, probably, since it started in eleventh grade.

He was of age of consent at the beginning, probably, since it started in eleventh grade.

But not able to consent (until he turned 18) according to s.153(2) (as pointed out by Catalasia) because of her position of power.

He was of age of consent at the beginning, probably, since it started in eleventh grade.

Yes, but according to the Canadians he was a "young" person (under 18)
and his teacher was in a position of authority over him or something....

... point being he was unable to consent. Somebody allready posted the legal texts.

EDIT: meh, Neesika beat me to it. :P

And from a women I understand all that. I'm not a woman, though, and I'm telling you that the woman in that picture I posted could not rape me. As I said, men and women are very different. Sex is not always as personal with us. Sometimes, in fact a lot of times, it's just about getting laid by some smoking hot chick.

I dont want to be raped, I am a male. Am I somehow less human? I only have sex with women I care about and am engaged in a loving monogomous relationship with. Men and women are not as different as you think. Sex IS equally as personal with us.

Unless this guy was a complete weakling physically, she could not have forced herself on him because one of th ways in which men and women differ is that men are much stronger than women. Not just a little stronger, but a lot stronger - and faster. That means that this guy must have consented.

Poliwanacraca answered this well enough that I dont need to comment.

Another way in which men and women differ is that for women sex really is much more personal. The fact is that women have all the power sexually and are the ones who decide when and if sex is going to occur - with the exception of when rape is occuring.

Women have all the power? Are you a sub living in a BDSM relationship? I have turned down many girls outright, even my own girlfriend when I am not in the mood. Are you telling me that you would have sex with any woman who wanted it, no matter what they look like or old they were?

Sex is way more personal for me than pretty much every girl I know...most my friends have a similar view.


Also, there is much more social stigma attached to women when they have sex than to men. This translates into both more social consequences and more personal consequences when sex occurs.

I agree with you here, but its sexist and that does not make it right.

The fact is that for women there is a lot more at stake. Men will have sex for no other reason than because it is available from a physically acceptable. female. Women generally put a lot more into it than that.

A lot more at stake? Like what? Like the emotional damage that men are immune from? I sure wont stick my penis in anything that moves and I dont know a single guy who would.

I think you need to go out and get to know more guys, instead of relying on TV stereotypes for your information.

Yeah, his views on this are really repugnant. Reminds me of PasturePastry, who used to go on about women dressing a certain way 'deserving rape' etc.

I don't think you do, if you'd go on to claim that it's beside the point. It is exactly the point. This is not a duty-with-options. You can not consent to a breach of fiduciary duty, it's nonsensical.Of course it is. As I said throught the thread the guy violated the terms of his medical license. It's also nonsensical to say that the only way a person can violate their fiduciary responsibility is to rape someone.


Just occurred to you? I made that clear from the outset. As for the case itself, it's Norberg v. Wynrib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberg_v._Wynrib).

Read it. Thanks. So it's clear the guy was neither charged with, nor convicted of rape and that the court didn't find that he raped her, rather they found that he used her addiction to further his agenda which was to get sex from her.


[quote]He was found criminally liable for 'double-prescribing'. He was found guilty of sexual battery in the civil case. I don't know if criminal charges for sexual assault followed or not.

The Supreme Court of Canada judged him to be a rapist. Period. Criminally or civilly shouldn't matter.

No they didn't.

rape is about non consent. By definition, aquiesence as a result of coersion is not consent.
A guy wants sex. His girlfriend knows this. Guy threatens to leave his girl if he doesn't get sex.

If she consents, is this coersion?

Girl goes out clubbing. Guy offers to buy her a drink. She accepts and drinks the drink. Guy propositions sex.

If she consents, is this coersion?

Loving couple has a long and drawn out talk about sex and weighs up the pros and cons. After being told all the benefits and drawbacks, girl (previously against having sex) uses her newly aquired information to make an informed choice to have sex.

Is plying a girl with knowledge coersion?

Teacher asks student for sex. Student agrees.

Is it coersion?

Coercion is forcing someone to do something against their will. If the student wants to have sex with their teacher, then it's not rape. If a girl goes out and makes the free choice to accept a drink then she knows that this will impair her ability to reason later on. She knows that guys buying her a drink will want sexual favours. Yet she makes the free choice to accept the drink. So I possit that this also isn't against the girls will and thus isn't rape.

Words like coercion and acquiescence are thrown around a lot in law where I feel they should be. When you make a choice you make a choice and it's your responsibility to accept the concequences of your actions. Not to have sex with your teacher for years then turn around and go "money now plz! LOL!"

If anything the male student should be charged with solicitation!

Of course it is. As I said throught the thread the guy violated the terms of his medical license. It's also nonsensical to say that the only way a person can violate their fiduciary responsibility is to rape someone. This is not an issue of licensing. That is something altogether different. A license does not create a fiduciary duty, that duty is inherent in the position of power. A doctor is not ALWAYS a fiduciary to his or her patients, it is contextual. In this case, he was a fiduciary, and the breach was triggered by having sex with her. Nor did I make the argument (because it would be silly) that sexually assaulting someone is the only way to breach a fiduciary duty. But the Supreme Court found that in this case, that is exactly what triggered the breach.




Read it. Thanks. So it's clear the guy was neither charged with, nor convicted of rape and that the court didn't find that he raped her, rather they found that he used her addiction to further his agenda which was to get sex from her.
1) She brought an action against him for sexual assault.
2) She won.

He was therefore found guilty of sexual assault (rape is not a legal term here either in the commonlaw, nor in criminal).

In layman's terms, he was found to be a rapist.

Not to have sex with your teacher for years then turn around and go "money now plz! LOL!"

If anything the male student should be charged with solicitation!My thoughts exactly, hahaha!

I'm not saying teachers should fuck the student body (bodies?), but seriously.. It's not like his mum & her bosses didn't know it was going on, and it went on for fucking years.

Yet suddenly, out of the blue & years later, the man files a suit against his ex-lover/fuckbody? That's.. Seriously.. I don't get why this thread isn't one big fucking "LOL".

There are different kinds of force than death threats, and the courts are well aware of this, and take them into account. Your definition of rape as being 'under threat of death' is patently ridiculous.

I didn't define rape that way. :confused: I said that that would be rape, but that's certainly not teh only set of conditions under which someone can be raped. In fact, it was Athias who defined it that way, although I'm equally sure that he did not intend to imply that the threat of death was not teh only conditions under which rape could be defined.

Sorry mister "I know what a fiduciary is"...no go.

My name's Dan. not mister "I know what a fiduciary is." :)

...no go.Go where? :confused:

Yet suddenly, out of the blue & years later, the man files a suit against his ex-lover/fuckbody? That's.. Seriously.. I don't get why this thread isn't one big fucking "LOL".

Yeah, how crazy! It's like kids who were abused for years and don't come out about it until they're in their late 30s! LOLLOLLOL!:rolleyes:

*snip*

Seriously.. I don't get why this thread isn't one big fucking "LOL".

Well, in a way it is.

I dont want to be raped, I am a male.Well, I wouldn't worry about it too much.;)

[/QUOTE]

the rest of what you said was just a bunch of "I'm a sensative male, see?" I've been around for a long time and in my life I've found people who take this position to be more dishonest about sex than guys who admit that it isn't as personal. In my experience, men show how much they care for a woman not by screwing her, but by doing things to show how much they do. Spending time, money and energy on making her happy. Making the extra phone call so she knows you are thinking about her, remembering special occasions, that sort of thing. Women do all those things for their guy friends, but she's only going to let a man that she has deeper feelings for or is attracted to in a different way into her body. As for turning down sex, I've turned it down, too, is I didn't find the girl attractive or if I was in a relationship with someone else.

I think you need to go out and get to know more guys, instead of relying on TV stereotypes for your information.

I'm 38 years old and I live and grew up in Los Angeles. I've known plenty of men and women.

I'm 38 years old and I live and grew up in Los Angeles. I've known plenty of men and women.

In the biblical sense?

There are several teachers I had that I would have slept with if given the chance back in school. Still would.

As for the guy in the story, he was in 11th grade, it said. Meaning that he was about 17. Also, the relationship continued well after that, when there was no power reason for it to do so. To me, it's pretty clear he was enjoying it. I think it's some sort of revenge thing or greed thing.

The article made no mention of any sort of coercion. I think if he could claim such, he would have. With the knowledge we have, I'd say he's really just after the money or trying to ruin her career.

The article made no mention of any sort of coercion. I think if he could claim such, he would have. With the knowledge we have, I'd say he's really just after the money or trying to ruin her career.

And seriously, 2.5 million? Like a teacher would even have those amounts of money...
The whole thing is absurd.

But hey, that guy is just living out his pursuit of happiness, right?

He's not going to get a cent out of her, unless her union/association requires her to have liability insurance (usually not in Canada).

But ruin her career? That part is certainly done.

Then again, if the mother of the guy knew, it is more than likely she could have pressed the issue herself for a criminal investigation at least. Anyway, no clear indication of his motive here.

I'd like to apologize for interrupting this thread, but Neesika - there's a TG for you (with a link I was hoping you'd look at).

Sorry, sorry.

Back atcha :D