NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who missed this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285794,00.html

Yep, a 40-year-old male teacher married a 16-year-old girl student. With her parents' consent, it seems. If I had to guess, she threatened to run off with him anyway and her parents didn't have the nerve to call her on it.

Well, what do you think of this? IMO, although it may be within the scope of natural behavior biologically speaking, I think there is something definitely socially unsavory about this "relationship". I also think this (now former) teacher has some serious problems if he thinks it's OK to date a 14-year-old girl, even if he did wait until she was 16 to get hitched.

Oh yes, the old saying:

"If there's grass on the field, "PLAY BALL!""

No this is blatent abuse of power over her and undue influence he should be fired and arrested.

No this is blatent abuse of power over her and undue influence he should be fired and arrested.
He resigned before getting hitched. I don't like it, I think there's something fishy here (not just the one she's holding), but he got the consent of her folks. She's within the age of consent for the state, and he resigned before getting legally married. He's within the law.

He resigned before getting hitched. I don't like it, I think there's something fishy here (not just the one she's holding), but he got the consent of her folks. She's within the age of consent for the state, and he resigned before getting legally married. He's within the law.

True..but they must have had more than a teacher/student relationship BEFORE getting married...

Eww, I hate that saying.

True..but they must have had more than a teacher/student relationship BEFORE getting married...
Sadly, paying court to a woman when her parents have given permission isn't illegal.

If there was evidence that there was a physical relationship, that would be very, very different. But such evidence really seems to be lacking right now.

Pitty.

Time for another good idea bad idea.

Good idea: Getting consent for a hitchin'


Bad idea: Getting consent for a hitchin' to a 16-year-old


Shocking altogether.

No this is blatent abuse of power over her and undue influence he should be fired and arrested.

I agree about the abuse of power and undue influence. But apparently he complied with the requirements of the law.

I think it's more than just the age difference that's the problem here, it's the age difference plus her being a minor and a student and him being a teacher.

Suppose she had been 18 instead of 16, but still a student at his school. What then? I would say it's still unsavory.

True..but they must have had more than a teacher/student relationship BEFORE getting married...
Dunno, runners are a little http://jophan.org/mimosa/m28/screwy.gif

No this is blatent abuse of power over her and undue influence he should be fired and arrested.

it has to be proven. it was investigated but not enough evidence was found.

In contrast to the other teacher/student... scandals of late, this might actually be genuine. If it is, I wish them luck.

He resigned before getting hitched. I don't like it, I think there's something fishy here (not just the one she's holding), but he got the consent of her folks. She's within the age of consent for the state, and he resigned before getting legally married. He's within the law.
His actions may technically be within the law

They shouldent be

I go farther her parents, if they have any younger children should have them taken away it is apparent they have no concept of making responsible decisions for their children

His actions may technically be within the law

They shouldent be
Eh... that's fuzzy ground that is hard to make a cut and dried statement. They could actually be in love and making a decision as adults.

I'm a bit surprised at the parents for granting consent when they feel something's off color there. They are supposed to be the breaks on this type of thing.

I go farther her parents, if they have any younger children should have them taken away it is apparent they have no concept of making responsible decisions for their children

her parents Gudgingly gave their consent. so together with the fact that they noticed the relationship and asked the school to look into it. It can be inferred that the parents were responsible.

so why did they give their consent? maybe instead of only talking to the teacher or their daughter, they talked to both of them and they listened to what their daughter said. they also seriously considered what their daughter and her lover said.

can you really blame the parents for that?

Well although I think this is pretty nasty, it's not like shes a baby in a pram stolen from her parents, she has a will of her own and has her parents consent, going down the road of social authoritarianism is dangerous.

Eh... that's fuzzy ground that is hard to make a cut and dried statement. They could actually be in love and making a decision as adults.

I'm a bit surprised at the parents for granting consent when they feel something's off color there. They are supposed to be the breaks on this type of thing.

They are supposed to ... apparently they failed

Even making the decision out of "love" it is still irresponsible of the parents at best

Hell marriage period would be irresponsable, the fact that it is with a teacher who is more then twice her age makes it more so.

her parents Gudgingly gave their consent. so together with the fact that they noticed the relationship and asked the school to look into it. It can be inferred that the parents were responsible.

so why did they give their consent? maybe instead of only talking to the teacher or their daughter, they talked to both of them and they listened to what their daughter said. they also seriously considered what their daughter and her lover said.

can you really blame the parents for that?

Yes I can ... want and love are not enough for a marrige and they are knowingly signing off on something that there is no way is healthy for their kid

Maybe my first statement with arresting him was rash but these parents are almost as disgusting as the teacher himself

well its pretty creepy but they got legally married and that makes it legally OK.

its not like she cant divorce him if it turns out to be a huge mistake.

Hell marriage period would be irresponsable, the fact that it is with a teacher who is more then twice her age makes it more so.
Are you saying that marriage is irresponcible or that marriage at her age irregardless of her partner's age is irresponable? :confused:

As weird as that must be, they're perfectly within both their rights and the law. Sometimes Liberal Democracy means putting up with choices we might consider creepy.

Are you saying that marriage is irresponcible or that marriage at her age irregardless of her partner's age is irresponable? :confused:

Yes the responsible thing to do would be to wait
Wishing for something and waiting to act on them until the time is right the responsible thing to do.

I understand that people are different and grow up at different paces and normally I am not an "age limit" sort of guy but 16 ... come on she is just frigging getting her drivers license about now

Yes I can ... want and love are not enough for a marrige and they are knowingly signing off on something that there is no way is healthy for their kid

Maybe my first statement with arresting him was rash but these parents are almost as disgusting as the teacher himselfHow is it not healthy for their daughter?

they (her parents) took their daughter seriously. they may have argued against it, but at least they took her discision seriously.

would you rather the parents lock their daughter under lock and key, watching and dictating her every move, going though her email and recording her phone conversations?

if the daughter was adamant in marrying the teacher (who resigned his posistion so that he could marry her.) at least they let their daughter know that should anything go wrong she has their support.

also, the fact that the teacher resigned his teaching position, and most likely, discussed this with her parents where they could've run off and eloped, shows he was also responsible as well as cared for her well being.

Hager's parents, Dennis and Betty Hager, said they did all they could to keep the couple apart after noticing a deeper-than-usual friendship forming between them. The parents said they tried to intervene by talking to the coach, going to school officials, pleading with police and sheriff's office detectives, even other teachers and students at South Brunswick.

sounds like the Parents were at least paying attention to their daughter and her activities.

How is it not healthy for their daughter?

would you be complaining if it was two 16 year old who gotten their parents consent for the marriage?

or is it the fact that one of them is in their 40's?

they (her parents) took their daughter seriously. they may have argued against it, but at least they took her discision seriously.

would you rather the parents lock their daughter under lock and key, watching and dictating her every move, going though her email and recording her phone conversations?

if the daughter was adamant in marrying the teacher (who resigned his posistion so that he could marry her.) at least they let their daughter know that should anything go wrong she has their support.

also, the fact that the teacher resigned his teaching position, and most likely, discussed this with her parents where they could've run off and eloped, shows he was also responsible as well as cared for her well being.

For one I have stated (I thought clearly) that it would be a bad decision reguardless of the age of the other party

And this is not a dichotomy not giving your daughter a marriage license != keeping her under lock and key

edit: (re read the article) as far as the resigning bit goes maybe he realized that he would be frigging ineffectual as a teacher in that sort of environment afterwords

sounds like the Parents were at least paying attention to their daughter and her activities.
Thats good they should have stuck to their guns

For one I have stated (I thought clearly) that it would be a bad decision reguardless of the age of the other party

And this is not a dichotomy not giving your daughter a marriage license != keeping her under lock and key

edit: (re read the article) as far as the resigning bit goes maybe he realized that he would be frigging ineffectual as a teacher in that sort of environment afterwords
yeah you did, I didn't see your response to NEVRUN untill after I posted.

He could be sparing the school, her and her family any further complications from their relationship. why assume the negative?

honestly... I wouldn't know what I would do if my 16 yr old daughter and her 40+ yr old lover came up to me with this proposal...

but I would seriously consider what they say and if both were serious, maybe I would give my consent. if only to let her know that she can always come home should things not work out.

also, ever consider that she could be "more mature" than a 16 year old... or even most 18 year olds for that matter?

She's kinda cute. I'd hit it.

yeah you did, I didn't see your response to NEVRUN untill after I posted.

He could be sparing the school, her and her family any further complications from their relationship. why assume the negative?

honestly... I wouldn't know what I would do if my 16 yr old daughter and her 40+ yr old lover came up to me with this proposal...

but I would seriously consider what they say and if both were serious, maybe I would give my consent. if only to let her know that she can always come home should things not work out.

also, ever consider that she could be "more mature" than a 16 year old... or even most 18 year olds for that matter?
Yes I have ... I still think it is a bad Idea at 18 but at least she can sign her own paper work or drive a car ...

I hope my kids know they can come to me with anything but that does not mean they will always get what they want from me part of being a parent is saying no to things that are not right for your kids reguardless of how bad they want them

She's kinda cute. I'd hit it.

how can you tell with a photo like that?
then again, i know a girl who already had a kid by the time she tuned 16 and her boyfriend is 22...

its not like she cant divorce him if it turns out to be a huge mistake.

Which is why it is always good to wait a while. You may save yourself from a lot of paperwork.

If you go into a marriage thinking that you can always divorce if things don't turn out..then what would be the point of marrying in the first place?

"If there's grass on the field, "PLAY BALL!""
I've never heard that one. Are you sure you didn't mean either "Old enough to pee, old enough for me" or "If there's fluff on the muff, she's old enough"?

Which is why it is always good to wait a while. You may save yourself from a lot of paperwork.

If you go into a marriage thinking that you can always divorce if things don't turn out..then what would be the point of marrying in the first place?

yes it would have been best to wait. in 2 years when she graduates highschool she is very likely to have no interest in this man. and if she does, she would have plenty of time to marry him.

but she chose to marry him.

im sure SHE didnt go into it thinking that she can dump him if it doesnt work out. she is 16, she thinks that its love forever.

and i suppose it could be. not likely but not impossible either.

im sure SHE didnt go into it thinking that she can dump him if it doesnt work out. she is 16, she thinks that its love forever.


I'm sure. It's why I get a big laugh when I hear young people (or even people that just barely started out in the relationship) say they are in love.

I'm sure. It's why I get a big laugh when I hear young people (or even people that just barely started out in the relationship) say they are in love.

its not that they arent in love, its that you cant know if the love will last.

even at 16 its not that she is too young to be in love, its that she is too young to be a wife. at a time when she should be out having goofy fun with her friends, her 40 year old husband will expect her to be home with him, cooking, cleaning, studying.

I've never heard that one. Are you sure you didn't mean either "Old enough to pee, old enough for me" or "If there's fluff on the muff, she's old enough"?

No, but there was the one that goes "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." I thought that one was a little much, though. Besides, "PLAY BALL" kinda goes with a situation involving a coach, eh?

its not that they arent in love, its that you cant know if the love will last.

even at 16 its not that she is too young to be in love, its that she is too young to be a wife. at a time when she should be out having goofy fun with her friends, her 40 year old husband will expect her to be home with him, cooking, cleaning, studying.

same as with teen pregancies.

but who knows. maybe he'll not expect the wifey duties till after she graduates.

remember, he's now jobless... so to pay for her education (even a part of it.) as well as to feed them, he's going to have to work at it.

wonder what he'll say when asked why he left his teaching job...

She's kinda cute. I'd hit it.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2d/I%27d_hit_it_card.jpg

Yep, a 40-year-old male teacher married a 16-year-old girl student. With her parents' consent, it seems. If I had to guess, she threatened to run off with him anyway and her parents didn't have the nerve to call her on it.


It was consensual. She wanted him. I fail to care.

Sadly, paying court to a woman when her parents have given permission isn't illegal.

If there was evidence that there was a physical relationship, that would be very, very different. But such evidence really seems to be lacking right now.

Pitty.

In teaching laws, however, most districts will at least investigate (which is a concrete bitch in and of itself even if nothing is found), and definitiely fire if the preponderance of evidence shows what's called "grooming" behavior of teachers with students. That's essentially "paying court" while you're still teacher-student. You'll get canned for it, if not action against your certificate. You'll certainly have the devil's own time finding another gig in the field you spent all that time and money getting into.

No, but there was the one that goes "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." I thought that one was a little much, though. Besides, "PLAY BALL" kinda goes with a situation involving a coach, eh?

There's a British version "If there's grass on the wicket let's play cricket", which is better since it rhymes:p

Well, I must admit that the story activates my "creepy" reflex.

However, I also know that in the panoply of human development, there's no way we all start, develop, mature and finish the same way. If you accept the principle of exceptionality, then you might imagine the development and maturity of people as a bell curve. That means there MUST be boys and girls on both the extremely late maturing AND the extremely early maturing ends of that curve.

That said, however, I'll reserve judgement until the day they celebrate an anniversary that has more than one digit in it. 'Cause when they've been married 10 years, she'll be 26, and he'll be 50. She'll be hitting her sexual peak when he's fixing to retire. The marriage won't last.

The killer in all of these kinds of stories is the marriage. Why does it always have to be that they MUST get married? The parents should have consented to an engagement until she was 18 and then allow her to get married if she still fancies the idea. She'd still have to live under their roof, and they'd still have to date and go through a regular engagement -- lots of engagements are two years long or longer.

That way, they're still seeing one another, and they get to find out what it will be like to be together and if it turns out that explaining every cultural reference over ten years old to her drives him nuts, or she hates that he corrects her grammar and tells her to stop saying "like" every other word, they can break up WITHOUT the legal hassle that is a divorce.

To me, it's always telling, and suspiciously so, when couples like this MUST get married. If it's such a fantastic relationship, surely it can survive without state sanction for a couple of years. Surely there's no financial advantage when one of the pair is 16? It reeks of rushing for no reason. Personally, I could imagine that the girl might be pregnant, and the marriage is to somehow soften the blow of delivering that news. But that's me. Pessimist.

For those of you who missed this story:
Oh yes, the old saying:

"If there's grass on the field, "PLAY BALL!""

I've heard worse: "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to butcher."

Revolting.

Anyway. As far as this case goes, if it's quite clear it's all consensual, I don't see a problem with it. Age is an important factor in relationships, but I personally don't see it as important as personality and emotional maturity, both of which vary greatly amongst a cohort.

If they love each other, I do not see a problem with it.

No, but there was the one that goes "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." I thought that one was a little much, though. Besides, "PLAY BALL" kinda goes with a situation involving a coach, eh?
He's a track coach, which is why I said what I did on the first page.

My first relationship was with a 18 year old guy (I was 14).

At the time, I thought it just meant I was mature and there was nothing wrong with it and age means little and yada yada yada.

Looking back, it was because he had the maturity of a 14 year old.

In most cases, the older partner can't hack it with people of their own age group, for any of a variety of reasons, and younger folks tend to be less experienced and more easily impressed.

And I say this as somebody with a definite fetish for the younger types. My lover frequently teases me for eyeballing the freshman tail around our neighborhood (we live 2 blocks off a college campus). "Old enough to crawl? They're in the right position!" and all that jazz.

In most cases, the older partner can't hack it with people of their own age group, for any of a variety of reasons, and younger folks tend to be less experienced and more easily impressed.

That can be the crux of it - a 40 year old can seem a world of wisdom to the impressionable 16 year old - a father figure almost, a father that both understands as well as provides the intimacy lost during teenage years, although a couple of steps along the way.

..and for the 40 year old? He gets someone who listens, doesn't argue back, someone who adores.

Often, there's no real love in these relations, no true appreciation of another person, who they are, their thoughts and yes, their damn individual attitudes that might not correspond to yours.

Not to say it's the same in all cases but as that girl grows up, if she's allowed, and sees him as a man with failings, of weaknesses, then the fairy tale ends both for him and her.

However, I'm being a tad judgmental I suppose.

Time for another good idea bad idea.

Good idea: Getting consent for a hitchin'


Bad idea: Getting consent for a hitchin' to a 16-year-old


Shocking altogether.

*cries* God I miss Animaniacs...

Yes I can ... want and love are not enough for a marrige and they are knowingly signing off on something that there is no way is healthy for their kid

Maybe my first statement with arresting him was rash but these parents are almost as disgusting as the teacher himself

I think you're making assumptions here. I have a friend whose parents were 36 and 15 when they started dating over 30 years ago. Is it generally likely to be true? Of course not. However, can you say for sure that this is a bad thing or not a "real" relationship in this specific instance? No. You really can't.

I think you're making assumptions here. I have a friend whose parents were 36 and 15 when they started dating over 30 years ago. Is it generally likely to be true? Of course not. However, can you say for sure that this is a bad thing or not a "real" relationship in this specific instance? No. You really can't.
Then I assume you are okay with a 12 year old and 40 year old dating, right? I mean, you can't be sure that it's a bad thing, can you?

What's your age cut-off? You seem to be okay with 15, so what about 14? 13? 9? At what point is it "love" between two individuals, and at what point is it child molestation? How do you know the 9 year old isn't just really mature?

There are countless stories throughout history of young children, even babies, being married off to individuals old enough to be their parent or even grandparent. Many of them remained married for their entire lives. Does this mean we should do away with laws that forbid the marriage of a 5 year old to a 40 year old?

Then I assume you are okay with a 12 year old and 40 year old dating, right? I mean, you can't be sure that it's a bad thing, can you?

What's your age cut-off? You seem to be okay with 15, so what about 14? 13? 9? At what point is it "love" between two individuals, and at what point is it child molestation? How do you know the 9 year old isn't just really mature?

There are countless stories throughout history of young children, even babies, being married off to individuals old enough to be their parent or even grandparent. Many of them remained married for their entire lives. Does this mean we should do away with laws that forbid the marriage of a 5 year old to a 40 year old?

*is confused*

That is exactly the reverse of his point.

*is confused*

That is exactly the reverse of his point.
His point, as I understood it, was that you can't be sure it's always a bad idea for a 15 year old to be married to a 36 year old.

So my question is, can I be sure it's always a bad idea for a 9 year old to be married to a 36 year old? What about a 5 year old? At what age can I be confident that the 30+ year old individual who is seeking to marry a child is, for wont of a better word, a creep?

I'm going to be honest, I'm not seeing the issue:

"but, dude, it's like...16!"

And?

"six and ten! like, you know, years"

Yes, you can identify numbers...:confused:

My lover frequently teases me...

It amuses me that you always call him "my lover" rather than "my boyfriend" :p


Edit: Oh, content, yeah.
16's legal here, although you require parental consent to be married. That means it's up to her, IMO.

Then I assume you are okay with a 12 year old and 40 year old dating, right? I mean, you can't be sure that it's a bad thing, can you?

What's your age cut-off? You seem to be okay with 15, so what about 14? 13? 9? At what point is it "love" between two individuals, and at what point is it child molestation? How do you know the 9 year old isn't just really mature?

There are countless stories throughout history of young children, even babies, being married off to individuals old enough to be their parent or even grandparent. Many of them remained married for their entire lives. Does this mean we should do away with laws that forbid the marriage of a 5 year old to a 40 year old?

No, I'm not okay with it. I cringed when I heard about from two people older than me who I already knew ended up in a happy, healthy relationship. I think the odds against it being a good idea, the odds that it is truly something that will damage the child are good enough to disallow it. However, UT was claiming it was necessarily unhealthy, which simply can't be shown.

There is a difference between making a rule because it would be dangerous to children in NEARLY every case and assuming it is dangerous to children in EVERY case. I was simply pointing out the difference.

In the case I listed, she grew up in another country where she was expected to behave like a responsible adult at about 12 and he had a fairly priveleged and easy life. By their own description, she was the more responsible and mature of the two, as sad as we might see that. We've all met 40-year-olds that we wouldn't trust to housesit for us. And we all know there are some children, a very small percentage that are more mature emotionally and mentally than many adults.

As law goes, however, I'm not willing to risk the well-being of the remaining huge percentage of children for that very small percentage.

Creep or not creep, whatever it is, it's not an equal relationship, that's for sure.

Well, this might go better than a secret affair or the two of them simply running off together. Still seems odd.

It amuses me that you always call him "my lover" rather than "my boyfriend" :p

*shrug* Habit formed from years of taking Spanish. In Spanish, at least the dialect I was taught, your boyfriend is your "novio." Literally, the masculine form of "lover." I find it much more appropriate than "boyfriend," since I have many boys who are my friends and our relationships are quite different than what I share with my novio.

*shrug* Habit formed from years of taking Spanish. In Spanish, at least the dialect I was taught, your boyfriend is your "novio." Literally, the masculine form of "lover." I find it much more appropriate than "boyfriend," since I have many boys who are my friends and our relationships are quite different than what I share with my novio.

Aah, fair enough. I quite like the "friend" aspect of, say, "girlfriend".
I just use "friend" for the other meaning.

No, I'm not okay with it. I cringed when I heard about from two people older than me who I already knew ended up in a happy, healthy relationship. I think the odds against it being a good idea, the odds that it is truly something that will damage the child are good enough to disallow it. However, UT was claiming it was necessarily unhealthy, which simply can't be shown.

There is a difference between making a rule because it would be dangerous to children in NEARLY every case and assuming it is dangerous to children in EVERY case. I was simply pointing out the difference.

Please describe a situation where the best possible outcome for a child is to be married off to somebody 30 years or older.


In the case I listed, she grew up in another country where she was expected to behave like a responsible adult at about 12 and he had a fairly priveleged and easy life. By their own description, she was the more responsible and mature of the two, as sad as we might see that.

Sounds extremely harmful to me. A 36 year old man who is less responsible and mature than a 15 year old is a loser, and it is reprehensible to subject ANYBODY, of any age, to being married to him.


We've all met 40-year-olds that we wouldn't trust to housesit for us. And we all know there are some children, a very small percentage that are more mature emotionally and mentally than many adults.

And so those children should be married off to irresponsible, pathetic 40 year olds?

Um, how about...any 40 year old who can't be trusted to house sit probably shouldn't be marrying ANYBODY, let alone a young child?


As law goes, however, I'm not willing to risk the well-being of the remaining huge percentage of children for that very small percentage.
I'm really confused. It sounds like you are saying that a "small percentage" of children are very mature for their age, and this means that it's okay for them to be married off to individuals many times their age because some older individuals are immature and irresponsible. You seem to be implying that the "well being" of mature, capable children will not be diminished if they are married off to immature 40 year olds. *confused*

Something can be unbelievably creepy without actually being illegal.

Whether or not it should be illegal is, of course, another question entirely.

In most cases, the older partner can't hack it with people of their own age group, for any of a variety of reasons, and younger folks tend to be less experienced and more easily impressed.

I personally have a weakness for agedifferences in both directions -mainly because of the difference in experience. Older and younger are both interesting - though there are definately limits (say 18-40, with myself in my late twenties).
In this particular case the teacher-student relationship irks me more than the agedifference.

His point, as I understood it, was that you can't be sure it's always a bad idea for a 15 year old to be married to a 36 year old.

So my question is, can I be sure it's always a bad idea for a 9 year old to be married to a 36 year old? What about a 5 year old? At what age can I be confident that the 30+ year old individual who is seeking to marry a child is, for wont of a better word, a creep?

But it's not a 9 year old marrying a thirty-six year old. Or a five year old. Those have absolutely nothing to do with this.

As creepy as this is, we should at least argue rationally. A sixteen year old, while not legally an adult, is not exactly a child either.

Something can be unbelievably creepy without actually being illegal.

Whether or not it should be illegal is, of course, another question entirely.
This is absolutely true.

I certainly don't advocate laws that ban everything I find creepy.

However, I do advocate laws against child molestation. The fact that I, personally, find child molestation deeply creepy (which I do) is not why I think it should be illegal. I think it should be illegal because it is abuse. It is rape. When adults abuse children for their own personal gratification, I believe that is a crime.

When a 36 year old man seeks a child-bride for himself, he is a molester and an abusive creep. If he actually loved his "wife," he would wait until she is of an age to make legal, adult decisions for herself. The fact that he wants to marry her before she is capable of making these decisions is evidence for his real intentions. He's no different than a guy who wants to fuck a girl while she's passed out, before she can wake up and tell him "no."

There's a British version "If there's grass on the wicket let's play cricket", which is better since it rhymes:p

As long as it's not a sticky wicket ;)

But it's not a 9 year old marrying a thirty-six year old. Or a five year old. Those have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Yes, they do. Because I am asking about where we draw the line.

Keep in mind, I am a person who advocates lowering the age of legal consent to at least 16.

He's a track coach, which is why I said what I did on the first page.

The applicability only goes so far, I admit.

*cries* God I miss Animaniacs...

Google Yakko's World. It's funny!

Yes, they do. Because I am asking about where we draw the line.

Keep in mind, I am a person who advocates lowering the age of legal consent to at least 16.

So...isn't it hypocritical to support the lowering of the age of consent while at the same time attacking anyone who follows the age of consent laws (Which are, in that place, sixteen) a child molester?

Admittedly, it's creepy...But if you support lowering the age of consent, why are you so vehemently against this? This will happen a hell of a lot more often if the age of consent is lowered everywhere.

Yes, they do. Because I am asking about where we draw the line.

One could create two lines. One at an age where everyone is expected to be able to give consent, and one which is the absolute minimum one is willing to accept. Everything in between depends on circumstances.

Please describe a situation where the best possible outcome for a child is to be married off to somebody 30 years or older.

I didn't realize that we only allow children to do things that will necessarily have the best possible outcome. However, I already described a situation where this woman has a life I would certainly envy. That certainly wasn't true of her life before she met this man.


Sounds extremely harmful to me. A 36 year old man who is less responsible and mature than a 15 year old is a loser, and it is reprehensible to subject ANYBODY, of any age, to being married to him.

This 15-year-old was likely as responsible as you are today. She was certainly more mature and responsible than most people 20-year-olds I've met in my life. I have this funny thing about not suggesting that mature, responsible people should be subjected to my personal morality and, as such, do not judge this woman's relationship.


And so those children should be married off to irresponsible, pathetic 40 year olds?

Um, how about...any 40 year old who can't be trusted to house sit probably shouldn't be marrying ANYBODY, let alone a young child?

Again, you are ignoring that I said the exact opposite and that this situation is rare. You are trying to extend my point to be general which is precisely the opposite of what I said. I was arguing against absolutes. How is asking me to defend absolutes appropriate?

Meanwhile, I didn't claim that this guy shouldn't have been allowed to housesit, I was just saying that always acting like age and maturity are related is simply fallacious and that I've known people much older than myself who shouldn't be trusted to housesit.


I'm really confused. It sounds like you are saying that a "small percentage" of children are very mature for their age, and this means that it's okay for them to be married off to individuals many times their age because some older individuals are immature and irresponsible. You seem to be implying that the "well being" of mature, capable children will not be diminished if they are married off to immature 40 year olds. *confused*

I seem to be implying that sometimes people are prepared for marriage at much younger ages than we currently allow, but that doesn't mean the law should change. I seem to be implying that because it's almost always a problem doesn't mean we can extend it to say it is ALWAYS a problem. Nothing more, nothing less.

Meanwhile, this woman's well-being was not diminished. That's not a guess. It's a fact. You cannot change this fact just because it sets of your icky-dar.

So...isn't it hypocritical to support the lowering of the age of consent while at the same time attacking anyone who follows the age of consent laws (Which are, in that place, sixteen) a child molester?

Admittedly, it's creepy...But if you support lowering the age of consent, why are you so vehemently against this? This will happen a hell of a lot more often if the age of consent is lowered everywhere.

Not really - it's one thing to allow 16 years olds to engage in sex, it's another to condone a 36 year dating a 16 year old.

You can be for one and against the other with no hypocrisy involved.

Not really - it's one thing to allow 16 years olds to engage in sex, it's another to condone a 36 year dating a 16 year old.

You can be for one and against the other with no hypocrisy involved.

So...What, it's okay for 16 year olds to have sex with whoever they want, as long as it's okay with you?

Not like this is okay, but I can't stand hypocrisy

So...What, it's okay for 16 year olds to have sex with whoever they want, as long as it's okay with you?

Not like this is okay, but I can't stand hypocrisy

For me it's about 'not punishing' 16 year olds for having sex, as opposed to condoning 36 year old men preying on 16 year olds.

Making any law requires 'drawing a line' and that will cause the extremes of those lines to be reached, that's a simple fact of life.

This is absolutely true.

I certainly don't advocate laws that ban everything I find creepy.

However, I do advocate laws against child molestation. The fact that I, personally, find child molestation deeply creepy (which I do) is not why I think it should be illegal. I think it should be illegal because it is abuse. It is rape. When adults abuse children for their own personal gratification, I believe that is a crime.

When a 36 year old man seeks a child-bride for himself, he is a molester and an abusive creep. If he actually loved his "wife," he would wait until she is of an age to make legal, adult decisions for herself. The fact that he wants to marry her before she is capable of making these decisions is evidence for his real intentions. He's no different than a guy who wants to fuck a girl while she's passed out, before she can wake up and tell him "no."

This was a legal, adult decision. As was the decision in the case I listed.

Meanwhile, you make another assumption. You make the assumption that it was he that pressed such a decision. Perhaps it was she. And there are a multitude of reasons to press such a decision. In the case I listed, they pressed the marriage because it was the only way he could return to the US WITH her.

Here's my 2-cents.

Most people do get weirded out when there is a significant age difference.

I remember when I started to date my fiance and my dad asked me how old the guy was, he didn't like the 5 year difference. It's nothing now, but it seemed to be a big deal when I first started to date my fiance, especially since my ex-boyfriend had been 6 months younger than me.

Large age differences can evoke difference reactions from different people.

Now then, I personally think the age difference between the former teacher and student is rather much, but I'm not one to judge. Who are any of us to judge.

The girl is the minimum age to give consent.

Parents may not have liked it, but they have made their choice. They must have their reasons, and I doubt they just gave in without talking it through and weighing the merits. We can debate about whether or not this is true responsibility till the cows come home but all we have are the facts in the article they probably aren't the whole story.

Also, everyone matures differently and at different rates. The age is just that, an age. It's an indicator of how long a person as been alive, it's not an indicator of one's maturity.

This was a legal, adult decision. As was the decision in the case I listed.

Meanwhile, you make another assumption. You make the assumption that it was he that pressed such a decision. Perhaps it was she. And there are a multitude of reasons to press such a decision. In the case I listed, they pressed the marriage because it was the only way he could return to the US WITH her.

It begins to sound worse.

Not making any assumptions however, would you say a 16 year old can make a rational decision about 'being in love', 'knowing what reciprocal love is' with a 36 year old.

What it tends to be, especially in the case of girls, is transference of paternal love to a father figure. That's not generally the case if the ages are closer because the older person is not equated as such, they're seen as peers.

Of course, there's always exceptions and this may well be the case but, in general, it's not an equal relationship between 2 equal and consenting minds and it's generally, not always, ultimately unfulfilling for one or the other.

Not making any assumptions however, would you say a 16 year old can make a rational decision about 'being in love', 'knowing what reciprocal love is' with a 36 year old.

Certainly the first one, and possibly the second one.

It begins to sound worse.

Not making any assumptions however, would you say a 16 year old can make a rational decision about 'being in love', 'knowing what reciprocal love is' with a 36 year old.

I think we tend to be centric to our own culture. One cannot compare the maturity of teenagers in our culture that teaches almost nothing about personal responsibility to teenagers in cultures where it's common for someone in their late teens to be running a household and keeping a family afloat. While I believe we can make general decisions about children based on age, we have to recognize that some individuals would be exceptions. Everyone here seems to think that we can regard teenagers in absolutes but almost every person here would be up in arms if we regarded any other group in exactly the same way.



What it tends to be, especially in the case of girls, is transference of paternal love to a father figure. That's not generally the case if the ages are closer because the older person is not equated as such, they're seen as peers.

Of course, there's always exceptions and this may well be the case but, in general, it's not an equal relationship between 2 equal and consenting minds and it's generally, not always, ultimately unfulfilling for one or the other.

Yes, there are always exceptions and that was my point. We aren't talking about in general. We're talking about a specific case where people are judging this girl's parents, this girl and this man without actually knowing whether or not this fits the rule or is the exception. I'm not willing to be so presumptuous.

Please describe a situation where the best possible outcome for a child is to be married off to somebody 30 years or older.

If the alternative is being a slave that will be tormented every day ?
And of course the whole "Mohammed and Aisha" story. Quite a few million muslems have no problem with it...

Certainly the first one, and possibly the second one.

...with a 36 year old?

I'm not sure you appreciate the difference in mindset.

I'll grant exceptional cases perhaps but in the majority it's an uneven relationship one way or the other.

If the alternative is being a slave that will be tormented every day ?
And of course the whole "Mohammed and Aisha" story. Quite a few million muslems have no problem with it...

I doesn't have to be the best. A better or equal outcome would be okay with me. Tons of assumptions are being made in this instance. I find it interesting since many of the same people would be upset if similar assumptions were being made based on stereotypes of people not regarding age.

I think we tend to be centric to our own culture. One cannot compare the maturity of teenagers in our culture that teaches almost nothing about personal responsibility to teenagers in cultures where it's common for someone in their late teens to be running a household and keeping a family afloat. While I believe we can make general decisions about children based on age, we have to recognize that some individuals would be exceptions. Everyone here seems to think that we can regard teenagers in absolutes but almost every person here would be up in arms if we regarded any other group in exactly the same way.

Age is a completely different marker to religion, race or nationality.

Teenage responsibility is as present in any culture but it doesn't make it right. There's plenty of 15 year old mothers in the UK, where I'm from but not currently residing.

Can you name a culture where under 16 marriage is not present in a culture where women are treated as mere chattel? Where it's a free and open decision by both parties?

We're talking about free choice here and I'm just not certain a 16 year old makes a truly free choice about dating, sleeping with or marrying a 36 year old.

The 36 year old, on the other hand, is making a choice.

Age is a completely different marker to religion, race or nationality.

Teenage responsibility is as present in any culture but it doesn't make it right. There's plenty of 15 year old mothers in the UK, where I'm from but not currently residing.

Can you name a culture where under 16 marriage is not present in a culture where women are treated as mere chattel? Where it's a free and open decision by both parties?

We're talking about free choice here and I'm just not certain a 16 year old makes a truly free choice about dating, sleeping with or marrying a 36 year old.

The 36 year old, on the other hand, is making a choice.


Sure, most cultures throughout history. There were many matriarchal cultures throughout history. Marrying so late is a relatively new phenomena as is the almost complete dominance by patriarchal societies. You're again being very culture-centric, but no surprise there. Newsflash, there are many, many more cultures in the history of mankind than islamojudeochristian cultures. In many of them, most of them, you weren't considered a child at 16 any more than you are at 50.

Age is absolutely different than religion. Religion is a choice and as such it would make sense that people within that particular ideology would have much in common. Age is not a choice, like race. I don't agree with agism and nothing you say will defend your attempts to treat individuals like they are necessarily subject to stereotypes of a group.

I still don't think we can consider what is going on without addressing the fact she is a track athlete. Both in high school and college, those girls are a little kooky - I think it is all the running.

As weird as that must be, they're perfectly within both their rights and the law. Sometimes Liberal Democracy means putting up with choices we might consider creepy.

Exactly... and in my nation, 16 is the "universal legal age", including of consent.

And that old saying "if there's grass on the field, play ball" is definitely irrelevant now, what with bald nether regions being all the rage among women these days.

If a 40ish year old man was dating my 14 year old daughter, I would be showing him the plot of land behind my house and making the comment that if I was to bury a body back there, no one would ever find it. I would then pick up a shovel and start digging. ;)

Sure, most cultures throughout history. There were many matriarchal cultures throughout history. Marrying so late is a relatively new phenomena as is the almost complete dominance by patriarchal societies. You're again being very culture-centric, but no surprise there. Newsflash, there are many, many more cultures in the history of mankind than islamojudeochristian cultures. In many of them, most of them, you weren't considered a child at 16 any more than you are at 50.

Age is absolutely different than religion. Religion is a choice and as such it would make sense that people within that particular ideology would have much in common. Age is not a choice, like race. I don't agree with agism and nothing you say will defend your attempts to treat individuals like they are necessarily subject to stereotypes of a group.

Neither the brain nor body are generally fully developed at 16. Just because it was OK 1, 000 years, or 5, 000 years ago, to marry 12 year olds doesn't make it right, nor does it make it right for 36 year olds to use their natural influence to date a 16 year old.

Many things were allowed in many cultures and still are, what are you trying to say? That a culture that accepts slavery is ok, that's it's culture-centric of me to make a judgement?

I do understand the generalization and suspect it's another non-debate.

I need to log off today so any response will be unmet til tomorrow alas.

I think New Mitanni is just jealous that he didn't get to have sex with a 16 year old girl at any point in his life.

Neither the brain nor body are generally fully developed at 16.

Again, you say generally. The brain and the body is often not fully developed at 18 and sometimes not at 21. This says nothing about the specific body nor brain.

Just because it was OK 1, 000 years, or 5, 000 years ago, to marry 12 year olds doesn't make it right, nor does it make it right for 36 year olds to use their natural influence to date a 16 year old.

It also doesn't make it wrong. You don't have to just prove it's generally wrong, but in order to judge this specific couple you have to prove it's ALWAYS wrong. You've not done so.

Many things were allowed in many cultures and still are, what are you trying to say? That a culture that accepts slavery is ok, that's it's culture-centric of me to make a judgement?

I do understand the generalization and suspect it's another non-debate.

I need to log off today so any response will be unmet til tomorrow alas.

You're attempting to equate this to slavery because you don't have a better argument. I'll accept that you can't figure on a better argument than "it's wrong because I say so".

I think New Mitanni is just jealous that he didn't get to have sex with a 16 year old girl at any point in his life.

I was always more attracted to older girls. Even when I used to watch The Partridge Family, I preferred Shirley Jones to Susan Dey ;)

I was always more attracted to older girls. Even when I used to watch The Partridge Family, I preferred Shirley Jones to Susan Dey ;)

No, really. If some hot 16 year old girl came to your house and offered her body to you to use as you wish, you would be all over it.

No, really. If some hot 16 year old girl came to your house and offered her body to you to use as you wish, you would be all over it.

Would you ?

Would you ?

I would. I totally would.


Then again, I'm 19, so maybe it's different.




But I totally would.

I just HATE people (like you, folks) who just HAVE TO stick their noses into other people's relationships! Why the Hell do you care? It's not you who's getting married to a 16yo! Or are you just jealous?

I would. I totally would.


Then again, I'm 19, so maybe it's different.




But I totally would.

I'd say at 19, more power to you.

Would you ?

Sure. I have a vasectomy, so I don't have to worry about getting her pregnant, either.

Would you ?

Definitely. Then again I'm 16 as well, so that's a bit of a moot point in regards to this debate.
As for the debate, when you set limits, people are going to push them to the limit. It's human nature. While I consider this vaguely creepy, as long as it's within the law, I have no real issue with it.

If a 40ish year old man was dating my 14 year old daughter, I would be showing him the plot of land behind my house and making the comment that if I was to bury a body back there, no one would ever find it. I would then pick up a shovel and start digging. ;)
Good thing she was 16 then.

If apples were oranges and dogs were pants :rolleyes:

It amuses me that you always call him "my lover" rather than "my boyfriend" :p


Edit: Oh, content, yeah.
16's legal here, although you require parental consent to be married. That means it's up to her, IMO.

Why is it amusing that "boyfriend", a childish term, was eschewed for "lover"? I find it more amusing (and somehow regressive) that anyone over the age of 22 willingly uses the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend".

This is absolutely true.

I certainly don't advocate laws that ban everything I find creepy.

However, I do advocate laws against child molestation. The fact that I, personally, find child molestation deeply creepy (which I do) is not why I think it should be illegal. I think it should be illegal because it is abuse. It is rape. When adults abuse children for their own personal gratification, I believe that is a crime.

When a 36 year old man seeks a child-bride for himself, he is a molester and an abusive creep. If he actually loved his "wife," he would wait until she is of an age to make legal, adult decisions for herself. The fact that he wants to marry her before she is capable of making these decisions is evidence for his real intentions. He's no different than a guy who wants to fuck a girl while she's passed out, before she can wake up and tell him "no."

In the panoply of human development, there's no way we all start, develop, mature and finish the same way. If you accept the principle of exceptionality, then you might imagine the development and maturity of people as a bell curve. That means there MUST be boys and girls on both the extremely late maturing AND the extremely early maturing ends of that curve.

That said, however, I'll reserve judgement until the day they celebrate an anniversary that has more than one digit in it. 'Cause when they've been married 10 years, she'll be 26, and he'll be 50. She'll be hitting her sexual peak when he's fixing to retire. The marriage won't last.

The killer in all of these kinds of stories is the marriage. Why does it always have to be that they MUST get married? The parents should have consented to an engagement until she was 18 and then allow her to get married if she still fancies the idea. She'd still have to live under their roof, and they'd still have to date and go through a regular engagement -- lots of engagements are two years long or longer.

That way, they're still seeing one another, and they get to find out what it will be like to be together and if it turns out that explaining every cultural reference over ten years old to her drives him nuts, or she hates that he corrects her grammar and tells her to stop saying "like" every other word, they can break up WITHOUT the legal hassle that is a divorce.

To me, it's always telling, and suspiciously so, when couples like this MUST get married. If it's such a fantastic relationship, surely it can survive without state sanction for a couple of years. Surely there's no financial advantage when one of the pair is 16? It reeks of rushing for no reason. Personally, I could imagine that the girl might be pregnant, and the marriage is to somehow soften the blow of delivering that news. But that's me. Pessimist.

snip
To me, it's always telling, and suspiciously so, when couples like this MUST get married. If it's such a fantastic relationship, surely it can survive without state sanction for a couple of years. Surely there's no financial advantage when one of the pair is 16? It reeks of rushing for no reason. Personally, I could imagine that the girl might be pregnant, and the marriage is to somehow soften the blow of delivering that news. But that's me. Pessimist.

A little off topic but I wonder if he would have to sign contracts as her legal guardian until she is 18...

I was always more attracted to older girls. Even when I used to watch The Partridge Family, I preferred Shirley Jones to Susan Dey ;)

That's because Susan Dey was, and is, fugly.

A little off topic but I wonder if he would have to sign contracts as her legal guardian until she is 18...

Probably not. In most countries marriage makes you a legal adult, primarily so you can exert authority over children.

A little off topic but I wonder if he would have to sign contracts as her legal guardian until she is 18...

A fine question.

Also lost in the last 50+ posts is the fact that this man was the girl's teacher/coach. There is absolutely no way that there isn't some form of attraction from her to him based on his position and him to her based on her status as forbidden fruit. If either of them deny that, they're utterly full of shit.

Part of any kind of lasting relationship is common ground. An age difference that great, regardless of what common ground might exist, imposes a limit on that idea. Is she going to look up an encyclopedia or documentary every time he makes a reference to cultural phenomena she wasn't even alive to experience? The teacher in him might find that alluring for a while, but it will wear on him. Nobody likes to constantly explain their own references and the references made in movies, TV, books, music and other media. And with more than a quarter-century of history separating them, that's a LOT of explanation.

From her perspective, how is it fun to have to explain current cultural phenomena to your middle-aged lover? I realize that she's most likely a very mature 16, but what does she like to do for fun (and no, I don't mean merely sex), and will she still want to do it with him when he no longer has either the physical ability or the interest?

I think Intangelon is living in the past - about 5 pages back - because I know I have seen those posts before.

Probably not. In most countries marriage makes you a legal adult, primarily so you can exert authority over children.

As someone who used to issue marriage licenses in Washington State, all it took was $55 and both (18-year-old) signatures in the presence of a deputy county auditor who has the couple swear or affirm an oath of eligibility. Anyone at 17 needed parental signatures and their oaths as well, and 16 needed those signatures & oaths as well as a court order (which was, in effect a combination of court permission and emanicpation all in one ruling). Younger than that is not permitted.

A fine question.

Also lost in the last 50+ posts is the fact that this man was the girl's teacher/coach. There is absolutely no way that there isn't some form of attraction from her to him based on his position and him to her based on her status as forbidden fruit. If either of them deny that, they're utterly full of shit.

Part of any kind of lasting relationship is common ground. An age difference that great, regardless of what common ground might exist, imposes a limit on that idea. Is she going to look up an encyclopedia or documentary every time he makes a reference to cultural phenomena she wasn't even alive to experience? The teacher in him might find that alluring for a while, but it will wear on him. Nobody likes to constantly explain their own references and the references made in movies, TV, books, music and other media. And with more than a quarter-century of history separating them, that's a LOT of explanation.

From her perspective, how is it fun to have to explain current cultural phenomena to your middle-aged lover? I realize that she's most likely a very mature 16, but what does she like to do for fun (and no, I don't mean merely sex), and will she still want to do it with him when he no longer has either the physical ability or the interest?

No shit and think of being tied down at an age you can barely drive ...

In many ways I did not go out and "party" like other kids ... I did not drink until shortly before my 21'st I went strait out of highschool to college and I have never been without at least one job and its been six years sense I have had less then two

That being said at least I was not married two years before graduation holy god that will get old fast

I think Intangelon is living in the past - about 5 pages back - because I know I have seen those posts before.

I re-posted my way-back post in response to Bottle's (#104) in case she hadn't read it. She'd touched upon the same things I'd said and I wanted to do more than say "yeah, I agree".

Again, you say generally. The brain and the body is often not fully developed at 18 and sometimes not at 21. This says nothing about the specific body nor brain.

I'd have to go into the psychology of why a 16 year old sees another 16 year old as a peer yet a 36 year old is not, though it should be obvious - I'm not questioning the 16 year old, I'm questioning the 36 year old.

It also doesn't make it wrong. You don't have to just prove it's generally wrong, but in order to judge this specific couple you have to prove it's ALWAYS wrong. You've not done so.

Within this specific couple it's formerly a teacher-student relationship, which makes me question it further. Your second sentence makes no sense.

You're attempting to equate this to slavery because you don't have a better argument. I'll accept that you can't figure on a better argument than "it's wrong because I say so".

You'll accept? :) I never gave.

I'd have to go into the psychology of why a 16 year old sees another 16 year old as a peer yet a 36 year old is not, though it should be obvious - I'm not questioning the 16 year old, I'm questioning the 36 year old.



Within this specific couple it's formerly a teacher-student relationship, which makes me question it further. Your second sentence makes no sense.



You'll accept? :) I never gave.

The only way you can apply your general statements to this specific instance with so little information is prove it's ALWAYS wrong. Otherwise, you're making assumptions without evidence. I don't see what's unclear about this.

But don't let little things like logic and facts get in the way of a good bout of judgement and condemnation.

The only way you can apply your general statements to this specific instance with so little information is prove it's ALWAYS wrong. Otherwise, you're making assumptions without evidence. I don't see what's unclear about this.

But don't let little things like logic and facts get in the way of a good bout of judgement and condemnation.

It's all over the news and plenty of people are providing plenty of information. The parents aren't happy, the police aren't happy, no one is happy. It's legal so fair enough but doesn't make it right for a 40 year old form romantic relations with a 16 year old. It's quite simple.

It's all over the news and plenty of people are providing plenty of information. The parents aren't happy, the police aren't happy, no one is happy. It's legal so fair enough but doesn't make it right for a 40 year old form romantic relations with a 16 year old. It's quite simple.

Um, people being unhappy proves what about their relationship?

Um, people being unhappy proves what about their relationship?

Debating with you is like inspecting grass with a microscope to find a lawn.

If you don't see how the teacher is culpable of abusing trust, of using his position to influence an impressionable girl, or you're arguing for the exception just for argument's sake then, well I can believe that of you, but it's still naive.

Debating with you is like inspecting grass with a microscope to find a lawn.

If you don't see how the teacher is culpable of abusing trust, of using his position to influence an impressionable girl, or you're arguing for the exception just for argument's sake then, well I can believe that of you, but it's still naive.

I see how you're trying to apply the general to the individual. It's not been shown he's done anything illegal or even unethical after much investigation. He certainly may have. It's even likely. But it's obviously pompous to claim to KNOW what did or didn't happen.

What's naive is claiming you KNOW things you don't know. No, not naive, just silly.

Ad hominems and appeals to popularity don't help your already bad argument. In fact, they show that even you don't believe your argument is strong.

I see how you're trying to apply the general to the individual. It's not been shown he's done anything illegal or even unethical after much investigation. He certainly may have. It's even likely. But it's obviously pompous to claim to KNOW what did or didn't happen.

What's naive is claiming you KNOW things you don't know. No, not naive, just silly.

There's enough information in this case to make a very accurate prediction given the psychology of relationship formation among middle to traditional teenagers. She was only 14 when contact first occurred, she was a model student who rebelled on this issue against her parents as she came into her teenage years and fellow students have stated she did not have many friends. A prime case for influencing by an adult outside of direct family. The teacher should have known better.

Agreed not 100% but accurate enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Unfortunately in this case, the parents tried to handle it themselves without seeking professional help. They did raise the issue with the school, who also did not seek professional help but rather looked to deny the issue as shown by the headmasters letter stating he saw no reason to believe the relationship was anything more than coach-student just 2 months before the marriage.

Since that help was not looked for, there's no way of accurately assessing this individual case but all the facts we do have point to a fairly certain conclusion.

It's not silly, it's a fair assessment.

There's enough information in this case to make a very accurate prediction given the psychology of relationship formation among middle to traditional teenagers. She was only 14 when contact first occurred, she was a model student who rebelled on this issue against her parents as she came into her teenage years and fellow students have stated she did not have many friends. A prime case for influencing by an adult outside of direct family. The teacher should have known better.

Um, do you have a link you're not providing? That's not in the OP link.

And again you are committing a fallacy. You are applying a general case to individuals, and not only is this not 100% effective, it's called a fallacy because it is.


Agreed not 100% but accurate enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Unfortunately in this case, the parents tried to handle it themselves without seeking professional help. They did raise the issue with the school, who also did not seek professional help but rather looked to deny the issue as shown by the headmasters letter stating he saw no reason to believe the relationship was anything more than coach-student just 2 months before the marriage.

They'd investigated the manner as had the police and found no evidence. Now perhaps you are willing to condemn and convict without evidence, but our government has this thing called innocent until proven guilty. So far, all that's been presented as evidence of his guilt are fallacies.


Since that help was not looked for, there's no way of accurately assessing this individual case but all the facts we do have point to a fairly certain conclusion.

It's not silly, it's a fair assessment.

They and the school had the police investigate and they found nothing. And, yes, claiming to know something you don't is silly. It's not fair. It's a fallcy. If you want to make a claim that it's likely, or that you think something happened... fine, do so. However you're claiming it DID happen, and it's provably fallacious to do so.

Um, do you have a link you're not providing? That's not in the OP link.

I've read around the case - feel free.

This makes the rest of your points moot.

Regardless, this isn't really a contention, I'm calling 'most likely', you're calling 'not absolutely' - same thing.

I've read around the case - feel free.

This makes the rest of your points moot.

Regardless, this isn't really a contention, I'm calling 'most likely', you're calling 'not absolutely' - same thing.

Oh, I've read about the case, but like most rational people, I don't claim things as evidence without, you know, evidencing them. I see you'd rather just make claims. Now you shift the burden on me. And, of course, the dropped arguments. I guess there's not a fallacy you're not willing to apply here, huh?

And you've changed your tune. You were originally condemning the man. Most likely is fine. Saying it definitely happened is what I protested. You were claiming we can know and that's fallacious. You're claiming otherwise which means you've shifted to agree with me, which is smart, since I'm right.

I don't see where anyone has said this, so:
Why don't you all just mind your own business?

Oh, I've read about the case, but like most rational people, I don't claim things as evidence without, you know, evidencing them. I see you'd rather just make claims. Now you shift the burden on me. And, of course, the dropped arguments. I guess there's not a fallacy you're not willing to apply here, huh?

And you've changed your tune. You were originally condemning the man. Most likely is fine. Saying it definitely happened is what I protested. You were claiming we can know and that's fallacious. You're claiming otherwise which means you've shifted to agree with me, which is smart, since I'm right.

I'm still condemning the man, no change.

Where did I claim 'we know?' Throughout I've made pains to say 'in general' or the like.

The one thing I would say I've claimed is that the teacher is culpable of abusing the teacher-student relationship - I stand by that.

I'll give you an example of where you said explicitly that you know something about this case FOR SURE.

Creep or not creep, whatever it is, it's not an equal relationship, that's for sure.


However, I went back and re-read the rest and in retrospect, you actually did seem to accept that an exception is possible. However, it's odd that you keep arguing with me when I've never claimed anything other than the slim possibility this is an exception. I don't agree with a universal condemnation of these relationships.

I'm still condemning the man, no change.

Where did I claim 'we know?'

Quoted above. You're not in a position to condemn the man without making invalid assumptions. Feel free to do so, but I'm not going to pretend it's not fallacious.

Quoted above. You're not in a position to condemn the man without making invalid assumptions. Feel free to do so, but I'm not going to pretend it's not fallacious.

I edited that post:

The one thing I would say I've claimed is that the teacher is culpable of abusing the teacher-student relationship - I stand by that.

Honestly done before reading your post though not sure it changes my point much.

As said, I don't think this is really a contention.

I edited that post:



Honestly done before reading your post though not sure it changes my point much.

As said, I don't think this is really a contention.

Actually, rereading it, I'm not sure it is either.

*slams fist* But dammit if I'm not going to argue anyway.

Actually, rereading it, I'm not sure it is either.

*slams fist* But dammit if I'm not going to argue anyway.

I blame the parents, clearly they were Nazis and this is their due.

We lost the debate for want of some really personal remarks. I'll try harder next time to come up with some choice insults.

I blame the parents, clearly they were Nazis and this is their due.

We lost the debate for want of some really personal remarks. I'll try harder next time to come up with some choice insults.

Make sure it involves dooty. I love insults that involve dooty. Sometimes I'm tempted to upset my nieces and nephews just for such an insult.

I commend Jocabia for being able to distill the simplicity out of such cacophony.

A news story set off most people's "icky" alarm, and that's exactly what the story -- the story -- was designed to do. Then we all went off on our respective tears about how awful it is for someone at 40 to be with someone at 16 in a sexual manner.

Opinions flew like feathers, mine included. (In my own defense, I will say that I was more concerned with the iffiness of the teacher-student boundary and the double iffiness of common ground in such an age disparity, but they were nonetheless still opinions.)

Jocabia reminds us that we do not, in fact, KNOW ANYTHING about the case beyond what is reported. It's an easy thing to forget when such press manipulation is in evidence and emotional reactions become little more than bad theater at best, and braying jackassery at worst.

Thanks, Jocabia.

(You poo-poo-head, you. ;) )

I commend Jocabia for being able to distill the simplicity out of such cacophony.

A news story set off most people's "icky" alarm, and that's exactly what the story -- the story -- was designed to do. Then we all went off on our respective tears about how awful it is for someone at 40 to be with someone at 16 in a sexual manner.

Opinions flew like feathers, mine included. (In my own defense, I will say that I was more concerned with the iffiness of the teacher-student boundary and the double iffiness of common ground in such an age disparity, but they were nonetheless still opinions.)

Jocabia reminds us that we do not, in fact, KNOW ANYTHING about the case beyond what is reported. It's an easy thing to forget when such press manipulation is in evidence and emotional reactions become little more than bad theater at best, and braying jackassery at worst.

Thanks, Jocabia.

(You poo-poo-head, you. ;) )

We in the Allanean Department of Post Appreciation award you this Thread Winner Award.

Gentleman, A WINNER IS YOU!

I commend Jocabia for being able to distill the simplicity out of such cacophony.

A news story set off most people's "icky" alarm, and that's exactly what the story -- the story -- was designed to do. Then we all went off on our respective tears about how awful it is for someone at 40 to be with someone at 16 in a sexual manner.

Opinions flew like feathers, mine included. (In my own defense, I will say that I was more concerned with the iffiness of the teacher-student boundary and the double iffiness of common ground in such an age disparity, but they were nonetheless still opinions.)

Jocabia reminds us that we do not, in fact, KNOW ANYTHING about the case beyond what is reported. It's an easy thing to forget when such press manipulation is in evidence and emotional reactions become little more than bad theater at best, and braying jackassery at worst.

Thanks, Jocabia.

(You poo-poo-head, you. ;) )

Thanks for that last sentence. It made my day. If it helps, it's more about the fact that I hate the media. We talk about uniting and dividing like it falls on the president, but dividing us is in the media's best interest ever since news became 100% sensationalist. I don't blame Bush or Clinton or the NRA or Jerry Falwell. The news gives us the impression that the world is against us no matter what we believe so those of us who care are constantly up in arms.

My family and I were just discussing how looking at the news you'd think that the world is so much more dangerous (my mother was the one saying that it is), but that in fact it's just that reporting of kidnappings, rapes, murders, etc., has greatly increased.

So not only am I a poo-poo-head but so is the news. *shakes fist*

The last 3 posts are complete dooty, worse, they're mutual dootybation - get a room.

The last 3 posts are complete dooty, worse, they're mutual dootybation - get a room.

Let's keep it going. I commend you for keeping us from bickering. *puckers up*

Let's keep it going. I commend you for keeping us from bickering. *puckers up*

This is what I'm talking about - a 20 month old Generalite puckers up in trying to seduce a poor, defenceless 4 month old n00b. You think you can take advantage of my youthful, impressionable mind?

Sick, perverted types like you let the terrorists win.

I feel violated.

This is what I'm talking about - a 20 month old Generalite puckers up in trying to seduce a poor, defenceless 4 month old n00b. You think you can take advantage of my youthful, impressionable mind?

Sick, perverted types like you let the terrorists win.

I feel violated.

You forgot to compare me to a Nazi and a communist again. You are made of phail.

Consent is consent, you know..