NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432881,00.html

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

Not so unreasonable, I think.

If I understand the comment, I believe the union rep was commenting how the law in the UK is being unevenly applied.

I told you that adding a practical exam to sex ed classes would only lead to bad places, but did anyone listen to me? No, of course not.

The union is right. It is an anomaly. As its over the age of consent, it should be dealt through by means other than putting the teacher on the Sex Offenders register. Just another example of the right-wing media distorting reasonable proposals into some sort of scandal so that they can mutter about political correctness and "the world going mad". Of course, relationships with students are highly unprofessional and the teacher should be punished, but the proposal isn't for stopping punishment, merely making punishment consistent.

Strictly as a teacher of teens....


Ew. I mean really, messing with a kid, gross.

If I understand the comment, I believe the union rep was commenting how the law in the UK is being unevenly applied.

I don't think there should be an excuse even if the student is over the age of consent or 18 or anything along those lines: the position of a teacher over a student is a very important position of trust, not only with the student but also with the student's guardians.

The union is right. It is an anomaly. As its over the age of consent, it should be dealt through by means other than putting the teacher on the Sex Offenders register. Just another example of the right-wing media distorting reasonable proposals into some sort of scandal so that they can mutter about political correctness and "the world going mad". Of course, relationships with students are highly unprofessional and the teacher should be punished, but the proposal isn't for stopping punishment, merely making punishment consistent.

I'm fairly confident that the article really isn't long enough to be some kind of right-wing conspiracy to make the proposal look bad...

I don't think there should be an excuse even if the student is over the age of consent or 18 or anything along those lines: the position of a teacher over a student is a very important position of trust, not only with the student but also with the student's guardians.
Should a boss be put on the sex offender registry for having sex with an employee?

Criminally no... but some kind of action should be taken against them by the teacher's union or school board; like a temporary suspension without pay or something.

Should a boss be put on the sex offender registry for having sex with an employee?

No. However, consider: many companies have a policy against inter-office relationships.

The difference is that employment in a specific place is voluntary. Being a student is not. Further, employees don't have legal guardians who put them in those positions.

No. However, consider: many companies have a policy against inter-office relationships.

The difference is that employment in a specific place is voluntary. Being a student is not. Further, employees don't have legal guardians who put them in those positions.
Being a student after the age of 16 is usually voluntary.

Should employers of 16-18 year olds be put on a sex offender registry if they develop a relationship? Keeping in mind that some teachers aren't too much older than high school kids (like 5-6 years older).

Also, what about say, professors who get involved with adult students in university? Both parties are able to consent and there are the same sort of trust and power issues. How is it different for high school students who do this?

I'm not saying that anyone who gets involved with their students should keep their job, but the sex offender registry might be unnecessary if they are involved with students who can legally consent.

I'm fairly confident that the article really isn't long enough to be some kind of right-wing conspiracy to make the proposal look bad...

I don't mean to suggest it is a conspiracy directed specifically at the question in hand, rather its poor reporting is a symptom of the type of newspaper that reported it. The Daily Mail (where the story is originally sourced from) is well known to be the lowest form of utter tabloid trash, routinely distorting pretty much any issue so as to fuel the righteous indignation of its idiotic readership. Its a newspaper for stupid people who like to be angry. Its stories have about as much basis in fact as those in The Onion.

im not a big fan of sex offender registries. i dont see why anyone who has had consentual sex with someone over the age of consent should be on one.

other than that, i think that a teacher should face criminal charges for sex with a student.

Being a student after the age of 16 is usually voluntary.

Depends on where you are. My school also required parental consent to drop out. Semi-voluntary.

Should employers of 16-18 year olds be put on a sex offender registry if they develop a relationship? Keeping in mind that some teachers aren't too much older than high school kids (like 5-6 years older).

I would say no. Then again, I would also remind you that employment is voluntary. A teacher-student relationship is different from a employer-employee relationship.

Now, I'm not saying that a teacher should absolutely be labeled a sex offender, but I would not be overly upset if they do.

Let me put it this way: a teacher should know better. I'm not going to let something like that happen to me, and I don't particularly care what happens to a teacher who's stupid enough to let it happen to him- or herself, so long as they're no longer teaching.

I don't mean to suggest it is a conspiracy directed specifically at the question in hand, rather its poor reporting is a symptom of the type of newspaper that reported it. The Daily Mail (where the story is originally sourced from) is well known to be the lowest form of utter tabloid trash, routinely distorting pretty much any issue so as to fuel the righteous indignation of its idiotic readership. Its a newspaper for stupid people who like to be angry. Its stories have about as much basis in fact as those in The Onion.

Ah. I didn't actually read the original source.

Also, what about say, professors who get involved with adult students in university? Both parties are able to consent and there are the same sort of trust and power issues. How is it different for high school students who do this?

Again, like companies, many colleges will fire a professor, or else greatly discourage such behavior.

I'm not saying that anyone who gets involved with their students should keep their job, but the sex offender registry might be unnecessary if they are involved with students who can legally consent.

I suppose that's a reasonable compromise.

Let me also say, for the record, that even if a student can consent, that's still a 5 or 6 year difference at least. And that's a bit creepy. The creepiness by age difference goes down the older the youngest is. At 18, in my opinion, even relatively low age differences are pretty creepy.

Depends on where you are. My school also required parental consent to drop out. Semi-voluntary.
Are you from the UK?

I would say no. Then again, I would also remind you that employment is voluntary.
What if it isn't? What if some parents have rules like "once you turn 16, you're getting a part time job" or have connections with a particular place that will hire teenagers and a kid is pretty much forced to work there?

A teacher-student relationship is different from a employer-employee relationship.
There's still an issue of power and trust.

Now, I'm not saying that a teacher should absolutely be labeled a sex offender, but I would not be overly upset if they do.
So you're not upset if people who have sex with other people who are able to consent to such actions are incorrectly labeled and treated as sex offenders?

Let me put it this way: a teacher should know better.
So should an employer.

I'm not going to let something like that happen to me, and I don't particularly care what happens to a teacher who's stupid enough to let it happen to him- or herself, so long as they're no longer teaching.
So because it's not something you can ever see yourself doing or being accused of, you don't care if justice is served?

Again, like companies, many colleges will fire a professor, or else greatly discourage such behavior.
But you don't think that they should be put on the sex offender registry for the same act?
If the age of consent is 16, then a 16 year old can consent just as much as a 20 year old.

Let me also say, for the record, that even if a student can consent, that's still a 5 or 6 year difference at least. And that's a bit creepy. The creepiness by age difference goes down the older the youngest is. At 18, in my opinion, even relatively low age differences are pretty creepy.
So creepy=sex offender?

Man, should those guys who called me sweetie when I went to the store just a while ago be put on the sex offender registry?

They shouldn't be prosecuted. They should certainly be fired, but I'm not for making consensual sex with someone of legal age into a crime just because one partner is in a position of authority.

Strictly as a teacher of teens....


Ew. I mean really, messing with a kid, gross.

I agree with that statement.

Are you from the UK?

That is, indeed, a question.

What if it isn't? What if some parents have rules like "once you turn 16, you're getting a part time job" or have connections with a particular place that will hire teenagers and a kid is pretty much forced to work there?

Pretty much forced and required by law are two very different things.

Consider: if a government is going to require that someone is a student, you can guarantee that they're going to do their best to ensure the safety of that student from real or even perceived threats, because they know they're going to have angry parents on them if anything happens.

There's still an issue of power and trust.

It's a different kind of power and trust. An employer is not an authority figure, not usually. Teachers are.

So you're not upset if people who have sex with other people who are able to consent to such actions are incorrectly labeled and treated as sex offenders?

Not if they know exactly what they're getting themselves into. Or at least, they should know exactly what they're getting themselves into.

So should an employer.

I agree. I've no sympathy for someone who gets fired for having a relationship with an employee despite company policy.

So because it's not something you can ever see yourself doing or being accused of, you don't care if justice is served?

Not particularly, no. An affairs with a student is a stupid idea. If someone is stupid enough to do it anyway, that's their problem, not mine.

Consider it like this: Either way, they shouldn't do it. Either way, they're going to lose their job.

But you don't think that they should be put on the sex offender registry for the same act?
If the age of consent is 16, then a 16 year old can consent just as much as a 20 year old.

It's not the age that is in question: it's the position of the teacher that makes a difference.

So creepy=sex offender?

No, but it definitely helps.

Man, should those guys who called me sweetie when I went to the store just a while ago be put on the sex offender registry?

That depends: If you're hot, young, or in the American South, then no.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432881,00.html

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

Students OVER 16. Whats the age of consent in England? I'm not denying that it's inappropriate and they should be fired due to, among other things, conflict of interest but if banging someone who's 16 and not your student is legal why prosecute just because they are your student?

Students OVER 16. Whats the age of consent in England? I'm not denying that it's inappropriate and they should be fired due to, among other things, conflict of interest but if banging someone who's 16 and not your student is legal why prosecute just because they are your student?

Because it's a violation of trust.

Pretty much forced and required by law are two very different things.

So if you require parental consent to leave school at 16 and your parents force you to work at a certain place at 16, these aren't the same? Either way, your parents are making you do something...

Consider: if a government is going to require that someone is a student, you can guarantee that they're going to do their best to ensure the safety of that student from real or even perceived threats, because they know they're going to have angry parents on them if anything happens.
So consenting to sex is a threat to a student who is old enough to do so? And a person should be labeled a sex offender to keep angry parents at bay even if they aren't strictly a sex offender at all?

It's a different kind of power and trust. An employer is not an authority figure, not usually. Teachers are.
You still have a situation where one party has power of another. This sort of imbalance in a sexual relationship can be abused.

Not if they know exactly what they're getting themselves into. Or at least, they should know exactly what they're getting themselves into.
So a 24 year old teacher has sex with an 18 year old student, is labeled a sex offender. A 24 year old individual has sex with an 18 year old, suffers no legal consequences.

I agree. I've no sympathy for someone who gets fired for having a relationship with an employee despite company policy.
But are they sex offenders?

Not particularly, no. An affairs with a student is a stupid idea. If someone is stupid enough to do it anyway, that's their problem, not mine.
So you don't care about injustice.

Consider it like this: Either way, they shouldn't do it. Either way, they're going to lose their job.
There's a difference between getting fired and being labeled a sex offender.

It's not the age that is in question: it's the position of the teacher that makes a difference.
So university professors who have sex with their adult students are sex offenders too?

No, but it definitely helps.
No, breaking the laws that get you labeled a sex offender helps. Having sex with people who can consent to having sex with you legally should not wind you up as a sex offender.

That depends: If you're hot, young, or in the American South, then no.
So being young and hot means that I deserve to be harassed on the street?

Because it's a violation of trust.
That doesn't make it illegal. Are employers who sleep with employees sex offenders?

It's a different kind of power and trust. An employer is not an authority figure, not usually. Teachers are.


What definition of authority figure are you using? I consider my bosses in the past to have been "authority figures" in that they had authority over me when I was on the job much as a teacher has authority over their students in school.

So being young and hot means that I deserve to be harassed on the street?

Being called sweetie is harassment? I guess I've been harassed by a lot of little old ladies then. Unless there's some context I'm missing from RhynoD's previous post . . .

Being called sweetie is harassment? I guess I've been harassed by a lot of little old ladies then. Unless there's some content missing from your previous post . . .
Oh no, sweetie's one of the nicer things. The guy was still creepy.

I regularly get whistled at, I've had a guy follow me for a block trying to hit on me before... general unwanted attention is not particularly uncommon.

So if you require parental consent to leave school at 16 and your parents force you to work at a certain place at 16, these aren't the same? Either way, your parents are making you do something...

Not the same: Your parents are forcing you to be employed; your parents are allowing the gov't to force you to be a student.

So consenting to sex is a threat to a student who is old enough to do so? And a person should be labeled a sex offender to keep angry parents at bay even if they aren't strictly a sex offender at all?

I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive (I do so love making that distinction). Regardless of whether or not it's right, it will be done because the gov't wants to protect its own ass (and there's nothing wrong with wanting that: we all want tend to like our asses to be unharmed). The morality of the practice is certainly up for debate, and we are, but here I was pointing out a reason for it.

You still have a situation where one party has power of another. This sort of imbalance in a sexual relationship can be abused.

Power and authority are different things. A kidnapper has power over you, but no authority. Your favorite professor who is a mentor to you has no power over you, but does have a great deal of authority. The difference matters.

So a 24 year old teacher has sex with an 18 year old student, is labeled a sex offender. A 24 year old individual has sex with an 18 year old, suffers no legal consequences.

That is the current situation, yes.

But are they sex offenders?

You're asking me?

So you don't care about injustice.

Not when its the result of a person's own stupidity, no.

There's a difference between getting fired and being labeled a sex offender.

Yes there is. However, the end result in regard to their career as a teacher is the same.

Actually, it's not entirely the same, since you can conceivably get a job if you're just fired. Which is probably why they label them: to ensure that they don't.

So university professors who have sex with their adult students are sex offenders too?

No, because, once again - and let me stress this part - going to college is voluntary. Professors are not authority figures. Teachers are.

No, breaking the laws that get you labeled a sex offender helps. Having sex with people who can consent to having sex with you legally should not wind you up as a sex offender.

I'm pretty sure that being creepy is a factor. I mean, sure, it's possible to be labeled as a sex offender without being creepy, but the odds go up pretty fantastically depending on how creepy you are.

So being young and hot means that I deserve to be harassed on the street?

I get whistled at on the street just for my hair (which is gorgeous, by the way). Take it as a compliment and move on, unless they go further.

I wouldn't say you deserve it, or that it's right, I would say it's going to happen anyways so you might as well get used to it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432881,00.html

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

You...do realise that quite often, you don't get a choice in the matter?

In Canada, unless you teach at a post-secondary institution or a private school, you have to be a member of the teacher's union to receive your teaching certificate, and actually teach.

Also...if you have a problem with the stance a union is taking on an issue, the best way to combat it is from the inside.

My take on the whole 'teacher fucking students' issue?

Don't. Ever. Just...no.

There should, and generally is, a bright line rule here. I don't care if the student consents and knows what they're doing and blah blah blah...just like a lawyer should not fuck his or her client, a teacher should not fuck his or her student. Under any circumstances.

The position of a teacher is inherently riddled with issues of power imbalance, possible fiduciary implications, and all around ethical landmines that no teacher should be stupid enough to mess with.

I'm not seeing what's so terrible about the union's position on this. I absolutely think any teacher who gets involved with a student should be fired and barred from teaching again, but listed as a sex offender? That's a much greyer area. I don't know if I agree with the union's position or not, but it's hardly "crazy."

You...do realise that quite often, you don't get a choice in the matter?

In Canada, unless you teach at a post-secondary institution or a private school, you have to be a member of the teacher's union to receive your teaching certificate, and actually teach.

Also...if you have a problem with the stance a union is taking on an issue, the best way to combat it is from the inside.

I certainly have the option of not joining a crazy union. Well, hopefully. There has to be at least one sane one, I hope.

I don't think there should be an excuse even if the student is over the age of consent or 18 or anything along those lines: the position of a teacher over a student is a very important position of trust, not only with the student but also with the student's guardians.
It's a professional issue, which is what the union rep said, but not a legal one assuming that the age of consent is 16. If the general public wouldn't get into legal trouble and be labeled a sex offender AND have to register, why should a teacher? Taken out of teaching for gross violation of professional ethics, yes. Criminal prosecution, no.

Let me also say, for the record, that even if a student can consent, that's still a 5 or 6 year difference at least. And that's a bit creepy. The creepiness by age difference goes down the older the youngest is. At 18, in my opinion, even relatively low age differences are pretty creepy.
Gee, thank YOU so VERY much for that. It's nice to know you'd find the fact that my wife is 8 years older than I creepy.

It's a professional issue, which is what the union rep said, but not a legal one assuming that the age of consent is 16. If the general public wouldn't get into legal trouble and be labeled a sex offender AND have to register, why should a teacher? Taken out of teaching for gross violation of professional ethics, yes. Criminal prosecution, no.

It is a legal issue if the government and citizens choose to make a law concerning it.

Gee, thank YOU so VERY much for that. It's nice to know you'd find the fact that my wife is 8 years older than I creepy.

You're welcome. I thought you might not know my opinion, and I was sure you would want to.

Also: the creepiness gets exponentially less creepy the older the youngest is. So while it may have been creepy when you got married (depending on how old you both were), it is less creepy now (depending on how old you are).

It is a legal issue if the government and citizens choose to make a law concerning it.
Thus is the issue about equality before the law...

You're welcome. I thought you might not know my opinion, and I was sure you would want to.

Also: the creepiness gets exponentially less creepy the older the youngest is. So while it may have been creepy when you got married (depending on how old you both were), it is less creepy now (depending on how old you are).
Why don't you just take your foot out of your mouth before you shove it in any deeper, m'k?

I don't mean to suggest it is a conspiracy directed specifically at the question in hand, rather its poor reporting is a symptom of the type of newspaper that reported it. The Daily Mail (where the story is originally sourced from) is well known to be the lowest form of utter tabloid trash, routinely distorting pretty much any issue so as to fuel the righteous indignation of its idiotic readership. Its a newspaper for stupid people who like to be angry. Its stories have about as much basis in fact as those in The Onion.

You know, it's insults like this that really make me wish people would pay more respect to the media. I mean, really, what has the Onion done that's made it deserve such a comparison? Do you really have such a disrespect for their integrity and honour as to insinuate that?

I certainly have the option of not joining a crazy union. Well, hopefully. There has to be at least one sane one, I hope.

It's not like there are multiple electrical unions...why would there be multiple teacher's unions in your jurisdiction:confused:

It's not like there are multiple electrical unions...why would there be multiple teacher's unions in your jurisdiction:confused:

I can always go somewhere else.

Thus is the issue about equality before the law...

Equality before the law generally refers to race, gender, ethnicity, and all those other things that aren't voluntary.

If there is a law that applies penalties to a teacher for having sex with a student, and that law is available for anyone to know about, then how is it unfair? If you don't want to be a teacher, don't be a teacher.

Or do you mean to say that there currently isn't a law, so the inequality is not legally valid? In that case, I can't disagree. There's no legal reason for it. But hey, jury of peers and all that.

Why don't you just take your foot out of your mouth before you shove it in any deeper, m'k?

Hey, I'm just saying, if you're 18 and she's 26, that's a little weird. Nothing wrong with being a little creepy, except that it's a little creepy.

Creepiness also goes down with gender...Older woman is less creepy than older guy. The trade-off is that it's more odd. So you get to trade creepy for odd, and it'll go away with time. I don't see what you're complaining about. And anyways, a lot of guys are into older girls, so you know...

It's one thing if the teacher hints at a student that if they will sleep with the teacher, they receive a better grade, or they have to sleep with the teacher period.

It's another if the slut cheerleader (using a stereotype yeayeayea) wants to sleep with the hot young math teacher.

But the cheerleader could always turn around and cry rape if he pissed her off, then you have a shitfest.

I can see why the sex offender thing is used as a catch-all, I don't agree with it at all though.

Again, like companies, many colleges will fire a professor, or else greatly discourage such behavior.
As can schools fire teachers if there's a serious breach of their contract. Having sex with a student, even consensual, would fall within that category easily. They wouldn't be able to teach again, but their lives wouldn't be destroyed by being forever labelled a paedophile for having sex with an adult 2 years over the age of consent.
All this Union rep wants is for teachers to be treated the same as everyone else. Doctors, for example, can - and are - banned from practising medicine for having sex with their patients. BUT they aren't put on the sex offenders list because of it.
So why the difference?

Let me also say, for the record, that even if a student can consent, that's still a 5 or 6 year difference at least. And that's a bit creepy. The creepiness by age difference goes down the older the youngest is. At 18, in my opinion, even relatively low age differences are pretty creepy.
Not at least. At 17, one could go to Teacher's Training College (both my parents did at that age). It's a 4 year degree, with the last year pretty much just being in a classroom.
So you could very possibly have a 20 yr old Trainee or a 21 yr old fully qualified Teacher teaching a class of 18 or even 19yr olds (at my school we had a couple of thicko 19yr olds still trying to make it through their O level equivalents for the 3rd year running - in truth they were still there just cause they couldn't be arsed working).
Or does a 2 year difference between consenting adults creep you out so much that you want to see the elder one put on the Sex Offenders list?

Equality before the law generally refers to race, gender, ethnicity, and all those other things that aren't voluntary.

If there is a law that applies penalties to a teacher for having sex with a student, and that law is available for anyone to know about, then how is it unfair? If you don't want to be a teacher, don't be a teacher.
If the law is not equally applied to everyone, it is not fair. Why should teachers be signaled out for actions that are NOT illegal for the general population at large?

It is a violation of professional ethics, yes, but it should not be a violation of criminal statue unless it applies to everyone. If a priest breaks his vow of chastity with an 18-year-old girl, it would be up to his church to punish him within the laws of the church, it is NOT up to the courts to say that it is illegal for priests to break their vows and therefore he must face criminal punishment unless ALL are held to the same standard.

Hey, I'm just saying, if you're 18 and she's 26, that's a little weird. Nothing wrong with being a little creepy, except that it's a little creepy.

Creepiness also goes down with gender...Older woman is less creepy than older guy. The trade-off is that it's more odd. So you get to trade creepy for odd, and it'll go away with time. I don't see what you're complaining about. And anyways, a lot of guys are into older girls, so you know...
Really, just stop. You already look like a fool.

Allow me to propose a hypothetical:
In all these cases the Teacher is mid-late 20s, the student is a 17 year old and is giving consent. Gender is irrelevant.

Case 1: Teacher screws student in own class
Case 2: Teacher screws student in another class but same school
Case 3: Teacher Screws student from another school

Is there anything legally wrong with Case 3? I don't think so. Morally it is the choice of the teacher and student.

What about case 2? Whilst the student will still have professional interaction with the teacher, it is not the same setting.

So, if there is nothing legally wrong in Case 3, how can there be in case 1? The key thing here is that the student is under the responsibility of the teacher.

It is not a legal problem I believe, and as such, it should not be treated with a criminal record. It is however corrupting the trust that the student has placed in the teacher.

So, by using the debating method of disjointed sentences masquerading as their own paragraphs, I have decided, that while the teachers should not be criminally liable, they do have a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to teach that student.
Just as a doctor may not have a relationship with a patient. Same goes for the university level.

Depends on where you are. My school also required parental consent to drop out. Semi-voluntary.


But legally in the UK (and let's be sepcific now, England and Wales... Scotland has a seperate education system), the school-leaving age is 16. That doesn't vary across the country. Ergo I don't actually see how the school could legally enforce you to stay at school after 16.

Personally I feel, as has been commented on previously that yes, it's a breach of ethics, yes they should be disciplined, loose their teaching liscence etc.. but putting them on the sex offender registry is ridiculous. Then again a lot of things around the registry is silly, like the fact that two 15 year olds having consensual sex can both end up on it since they are both under the age of consent.

It was something that I always thought about you could have 18 year old students and if a teacher slept with ine if these 18 year olds who might only be 22 at the time, had sex with this 18 year oldstudent then it is illeagal and the teacher is classed as a pedophile by society and is placed on the young sex offenders list. When if it was done elsewhere no one would raise an eye, though I am aware of the whole teacher-student relationship thing.

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

Well, apparently you read Fox News Network, so I'm not certain that you should be a teacher anyway...

It was something that I always thought about you could have 18 year old students and if a teacher slept with ine if these 18 year olds who might only be 22 at the time, had sex with this 18 year oldstudent then it is illeagal and the teacher is classed as a pedophile by society and is placed on the young sex offenders list. When if it was done elsewhere no one would raise an eye, though I am aware of the whole teacher-student relationship thing.
While I can work out your meaning I do feel the need to say: Dude, punctuation and grammar are your friends. Let them into your life, you won't regret it!

I don't think there should be an excuse even if the student is over the age of consent or 18 or anything along those lines: the position of a teacher over a student is a very important position of trust, not only with the student but also with the student's guardians.

What rot, the law is the law and needs to apply equaly. Yes this sort of behaviour is unprofessional and so should be dealt with 'inhouse' but it is not against the law so the law should have no say in the matter.

Allow me to propose a hypothetical:
In all these cases the Teacher is mid-late 20s, the student is a 17 year old and is giving consent. Gender is irrelevant.

Case 1: Teacher screws student in own class
Case 2: Teacher screws student in another class but same school
Case 3: Teacher Screws student from another school

There is also another situation: teacher and student are in a relationship before the teacher gets assigned to the school. I read about that on German-bash.org.

But in case 1, i think that there is the very real possibility that the teacher will abuse his position.

There is also another situation: teacher and student are in a relationship before the teacher gets assigned to the school. I read about that on German-bash.org.

But in case 1, i think that there is the very real possibility that the teacher will abuse his position.

Yes, which is definitely why it should be against disciplinary codes of practice and should result in job loss, at the very least, and loss of teacher licence.

The issue here is that such teachers are essentially treated the same as pedophiles... and that is wrong.

But legally in the UK (and let's be sepcific now, England and Wales... Scotland has a seperate education system), the school-leaving age is 16. That doesn't vary across the country. Ergo I don't actually see how the school could legally enforce you to stay at school after 16.

All I'm saying is that where I went to school, until you were legally emancipated from your legal guardians, you needed their permission to drop out. I don't know how it works elsewhere because I didn't go to school elsewhere.

And no, I'm not telling you where I went to school.

Personally I feel, as has been commented on previously that yes, it's a breach of ethics, yes they should be disciplined, loose their teaching liscence etc.. but putting them on the sex offender registry is ridiculous. Then again a lot of things around the registry is silly, like the fact that two 15 year olds having consensual sex can both end up on it since they are both under the age of consent.

Eh, like I said, I won't disagree that it's a bit harsh, but I also don't see any reason why anyone would be stupid enough to do it in the first place.

If the law is not equally applied to everyone, it is not fair. Why should teachers be signaled out for actions that are NOT illegal for the general population at large?

Well obviously teachers should (according to the argument of those in favor of putting violators on the sex offender list) because it is necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of students and to ensure that the trust placed in teachers by students' guardians is not broken.

And there are laws that apply to people according to their jobs: teachers have to have legal certifications to teach that other people don't have to have; certain security jobs require a background check and a background free of a criminal record. Really, that's the best argument you can come up with? Teachers shouldn't be treated differently? At the very least consider that different ages are treated differently by the law. Equality before the law protects against discrimination according to who a person is, not what they choose to do with their career.

It is a violation of professional ethics, yes, but it should not be a violation of criminal statue unless it applies to everyone. If a priest breaks his vow of chastity with an 18-year-old girl, it would be up to his church to punish him within the laws of the church, it is NOT up to the courts to say that it is illegal for priests to break their vows and therefore he must face criminal punishment unless ALL are held to the same standard.

This is reiteration of the above.

The point of equality before the law means all priests, teachers, etc. would be treated the same. It does not protect you from laws relevant to a voluntary choice of career.

Really, just stop. You already look like a fool.

And you look weird. And a little bit creepy. But mostly just weird. And really not that weird depending on how old you are. I mean, if you're 18 that's pretty weird, but not that many people get married at 18 so that's just more weird.

I would statutory you any day, Rhyno.:fluffle:

Mmmmmm, scale plated mammal that you are.

I would statutory you any day, Rhyno.:fluffle:

Mmmmmm, scale plated mammal that you are.

I don't think it counts as statutory, but regardless, I'm not saying no...

I don't think there should be an excuse even if the student is over the age of consent or 18 or anything along those lines: the position of a teacher over a student is a very important position of trust, not only with the student but also with the student's guardians.
(speaking as a teacher myself) THIS^

I don't think it counts as statutory, but regardless, I'm not saying no...

Of course you ain´t sayin no, you mammal you.

I don't think it counts as statutory, but regardless, I'm not saying no...

You do realise she's gonna try and fist you again, right?

Of course you ain´t sayin no, you mammal you.

Nearsighted, horny, plated, half-ton mammal...

You do realise she's gonna try and fist you again, right?

As long as she puts it in the right place, I'm ok with it.

I think I must make my exit now. This is getting slippery and I perhaps can be accused of statutory. LMAO!:D

hehehe! *Turns into a bat and flaps into the night*

I think I must make my exit now. This is getting slippery and I perhaps can be accused of statutory. LMAO!:D

I wouldn't press charges.

hehehe! *Turns into a bat and flaps into the night*

Angsty much?

Angsty much?

Nah... I need to go find a bite to eat... *Cackles*

I wouldn't press charges.

Is that an invitation to do the Wang Chung tonight?:cool:

Is that an invitation to do the Wang Chung tonight?:cool:

I think even the band members who wrote that are still trying to figure out exactly what "Wang Chung"ing is.

I think even the band members who wrote that are still trying to figure out exactly what "Wang Chung"ing is.

Well, I know what it is to me. :wink:

Well, I know what it is to me. :wink:

Hop off the good foot and do the bad thing?

Hello lamppost, whatcha knowin'? I've come to watch your flowers growin'! Ain'tcha go no rhymes for me? Dootin'-doo-doo! Feelin' groovy! [Because it's playing at the moment...]

"Me spuds are boiling." :D

"Me spuds are boiling." :D

Stick a fork in it.

Stick a fork in it.

With melted butter... *Drools*

With melted butter... *Drools*

Tissue?

Mmmm... baked potatoes!

Tissue?

No, potato.

This recent string of reveilles on teacher-student relationships makes me wonder how often this happens without anyone ever finding out.

Mmmm... baked potatoes!

I'd like to devour your baked potatoes.

This recent string of reveilles on teacher-student relationships makes me wonder how often this happens without anyone ever finding out.

Too often.

Too often.

Then it would seem that any prohibition on this sort of thing is night unenforceable. They're not kissing and telling, so we have no idea if its going on unless someone slips up.

Well obviously teachers should (according to the argument of those in favor of putting violators on the sex offender list) because it is necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of students and to ensure that the trust placed in teachers by students' guardians is not broken.
And that is a very bullshit argument. Quick! We've got to include people as sex offenders who did something that is perfectly legal for the rest of the population at large! It doesn't protect the students, nor does it do anything to preserve this trust you speak of, what it DOES do is give vengeance to the parents of children who did have an affair with a teacher. A teacher sleeps with a student over the age of consent, does that teacher need to be removed from the classroom? Yes. Lose his or her license? Yes. Why? Because such behavior is indeed a gross violation of the ethics of the profession. But is that enough for you? Oh no, now we have to take revenge for it as well and invoke the sex offender laws of the UK, a listing on which would make it damn near impossible to get another job or live in an area. And for what? For something that would be perfectly legal for the rest of the population at large! What possible sense does it make beyond revenge? Where IS the crime?

And there are laws that apply to people according to their jobs: teachers have to have legal certifications to teach that other people don't have to have; certain security jobs require a background check and a background free of a criminal record. Really, that's the best argument you can come up with? Teachers shouldn't be treated differently? At the very least consider that different ages are treated differently by the law. Equality before the law protects against discrimination according to who a person is, not what they choose to do with their career.
The legal requirements do NOT constitute criminal laws. No one faces CRIMINAL laws based upon their profession unequally. This is not equality before the law. As for ages there is a rather large difference between an adult who has achieved the age of majority and a child who has not. If you can't see the legal difference between the two...

This is reiteration of the above.

The point of equality before the law means all priests, teachers, etc. would be treated the same. It does not protect you from laws relevant to a voluntary choice of career.
But the law is NOT treating teachers the same. The law says that anyone else who has sex with a 16-year-old is fine. Teachers are in trouble, criminally. That isn't a law stating which certificate to have, that is creating a category of laws that makes it illegal to do an action fr just ONE category of people, not everyone else with whom it's a-ok.

And you look weird. And a little bit creepy. But mostly just weird. And really not that weird depending on how old you are. I mean, if you're 18 that's pretty weird, but not that many people get married at 18 so that's just more weird.
Wow, I must really be weird then given my wife and I are different races as well. Is that creepy too for you?

And that is a very bullshit argument. Quick! We've got to include people as sex offenders who did something that is perfectly legal for the rest of the population at large! It doesn't protect the students, nor does it do anything to preserve this trust you speak of, what it DOES do is give vengeance to the parents of children who did have an affair with a teacher. A teacher sleeps with a student over the age of consent, does that teacher need to be removed from the classroom? Yes. Lose his or her license? Yes. Why? Because such behavior is indeed a gross violation of the ethics of the profession. But is that enough for you? Oh no, now we have to take revenge for it as well and invoke the sex offender laws of the UK, a listing on which would make it damn near impossible to get another job or live in an area. And for what? For something that would be perfectly legal for the rest of the population at large! What possible sense does it make beyond revenge? Where IS the crime?

Who said anything about revenge? Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And the rest was just the same argument that's been made over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without saying anything new or bothering to really address any counterpoints I've made.


The legal requirements do NOT constitute criminal laws. No one faces CRIMINAL laws based upon their profession unequally. This is not equality before the law. As for ages there is a rather large difference between an adult who has achieved the age of majority and a child who has not. If you can't see the legal difference between the two...

I do see the difference. I also see the similarity.

I really don't see why I should feel bad because someone themselves into trouble doing something they knew they shouldn't have, knowing the consequences, and having made a conscious decision to enter that career. If you don't like it, don't be a teacher. If you still want to be a teacher, don't have sex with a student. If you want to have sex with a student, you're an idiot and I have no sympathy for you.

But the law is NOT treating teachers the same. The law says that anyone else who has sex with a 16-year-old is fine. Teachers are in trouble, criminally. That isn't a law stating which certificate to have, that is creating a category of laws that makes it illegal to do an action fr just ONE category of people, not everyone else with whom it's a-ok.

Teachers are not a people, teachers are a career. You can't compare them to a race or gender.

Wow, I must really be weird then given my wife and I are different races as well. Is that creepy too for you?

I see what you did there.

I don't see how you've demonstrated why teachers should be treated differently under the law than the remainder of the population. They should, and are, punished professionally, but you have not really shown why we should make something that is not a crime for anyone else a crime for this particular subset of people.

Your entire argument seems to rest on a very Mrs. Lovejoy-like exclamation about the children. You've claimed that these hypothetical teachers should be placed on a sex offenders registry to ensure their safety, but you haven't shown why charging these teachers with a crime will make them any more safe.

I see no compelling reason to criminalize consensual relationships.

I don't see how you've demonstrated why teachers should be treated differently under the law than the remainder of the population. They should, and are, punished professionally, but you have not really shown why we should make something that is not a crime for anyone else a crime for this particular subset of people.

Because teachers are different from the remainder of the population. The teacher-student relationship is a very unique relationship that does not exist anywhere else in society.

Let me ask you this:
If two consenting (adult) close family members have a relationship, is that not completely different from two unrelated consenting adults? The answer is an unequivocal, resounding yes. Legality can be debated, but no one can debate that the relationship is somehow different.

Am I saying teachers who have sex with consenting students should necessarily be put on the sex offender list? No. Am I saying I understand why they are put on the list even if I may or may not agree with the decision? Yes. Am I saying I don't particularly care because anyone who gets in trouble for it is an idiot and it's never going to happen to me? Very yes.

Your entire argument seems to rest on a very Mrs. Lovejoy-like exclamation about the children. You've claimed that these hypothetical teachers should be placed on a sex offenders registry to ensure their safety, but you haven't shown why charging these teachers with a crime will make them any more safe.

I never once claimed that this is a reason they should be anything. I did, however, claim that ensuring child safety is one reason why they are. Prescriptive and descriptive, respectively.

I see no compelling reason to criminalize consensual relationships.

I see no compelling reason not to.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432881,00.html

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

Excellent example of what passes for reporting at Faux News.

Twisting further a Daily Mail article that takes something someone said and distorts it.

I don't agree with teachers having a relationship with students, but all the teacher's union person said was that it wasn't entirely fair to make a teacher that has a relationship with an 18-year-old FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL spend time in jail and be registered as a sex offender:

She said: "If a teacher has a relationship with a pupil at the school at which they teach, it could be an 18-year-old pupil in sixth form, then that teacher can be prosecuted and end up on the sex offenders register.

"Clearly there have to be appropriate disciplinary sanctions in the school where a teacher works to make sure that inappropriate relationships don't develop.

"But it does seem a step too far, when there has been a consensual relationship, to put that person on the sex offenders register when, in fact, they could have a perfectly legitimate relationship with an 18-year-old at another school."

Later, Miss Keates told the BBC the NASUWT had raised the anomaly as soon as the legislation was drafted and that it advises members to keep relationships professional at all times.

"Any teacher or adult who works in schools who sexually abuses a pupil of any age should face the full legal consequences," she added.



link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7653326.stm)

Excellent example of what passes for reporting at Faux News.

Twisting further a Daily Mail article that takes something someone said and distorts it.

I don't agree with teachers having a relationship with students, but all the teacher's union person said was that it wasn't entirely fair to make a teacher that has a relationship with an 18-year-old FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL spend time in jail and be registered as a sex offender:

She said: "If a teacher has a relationship with a pupil at the school at which they teach, it could be an 18-year-old pupil in sixth form, then that teacher can be prosecuted and end up on the sex offenders register.

"Clearly there have to be appropriate disciplinary sanctions in the school where a teacher works to make sure that inappropriate relationships don't develop.

"But it does seem a step too far, when there has been a consensual relationship, to put that person on the sex offenders register when, in fact, they could have a perfectly legitimate relationship with an 18-year-old at another school."

Later, Miss Keates told the BBC the NASUWT had raised the anomaly as soon as the legislation was drafted and that it advises members to keep relationships professional at all times.

"Any teacher or adult who works in schools who sexually abuses a pupil of any age should face the full legal consequences," she added.



link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7653326.stm)

Once again, I'm still not seeing how a one-paragraph-ish article is twisting anything...What you posted is pretty much what Fox posted...

And people criticize paranoid conservative conspiracy theorists...

Once again, I'm still not seeing how a one-paragraph-ish article is twisting anything...What you posted is pretty much what Fox posted...

And people criticize paranoid conservative conspiracy theorists...

Faux news headline: "Union Official: Teachers Who Engage in Consensual Sex With Teen Pupils Shouldn't Face Prosecution"

Is that accurate? No.

Chris Keates, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said in an interview to be broadcast in the U.K. on Monday that teachers who have sex with pupils over the age of consent are guilty of a mere “error in professional judgment,” and should not be placed on the sex offenders register, the Mail reported.

Is that even close to a fair representation of what Keates said? No.

“There is a real anomaly in the law that we are concerned about,” the Mail quoted Keates as saying. “That is that if a teacher has a relationship with a pupil at the school at which they teach—it could be an 18-year-old pupil—then that teacher can be prosecuted and can end up on the sex offenders register.”


This half-quote makes it seem like Keates doesn't approve of the law regarding teachers and pupils at the school at which they teach, when the full quote says the anomaly she is complaing about is the application of the law to relationships between teachers and 18-year-olds THAT ARE NOT THEIR STUDENTS!

“Teachers who take advantage of a young boy or girl in their care should certainly face dismissal and prosecution … if there is no penalty what is there to stop teachers taking advantage of children and young people?” Lynette Burrows, an author on parenting and children’s rights told the Mail(emphasis added)

Again, makes it seem like Keates was saying the opposite of what she was saying.

The Daily Mail article was skewed enough. Faux News added another layer of "OMG Teachers think its OK to screw kids" to the facade.

Again, makes it seem like Keates was saying the opposite of what she was saying.

The Daily Mail article was skewed enough. Faux News added another layer of "OMG Teachers think its OK to screw kids" to the facade.

No, it really doesn't. I pretty much got all of that out of the Fox article. But maybe that's because I'm intelligent enough to think for myself and don't need my news articles to spell things out in great, voluminous detail for me like I'm an idiot.

Problem is, there are far too many idiots who read fox news (so this crap that fox news pulls does have a significant effect).

Problem is, there are far too many idiots who read fox news (so this crap that fox news pulls does have a significant effect).

Not a single news provider is any better. While I recognize that Fox does, in fact, have a bias, I think the perception of a greater bias comes more from the fact that Fox tells people what they want to hear expecting them to be intelligent enough to understand that there is a bias there.

I also find it interesting that Fox is just about the only news source that will cause people to completely ignore the discussion on the thread and instead spend the entire time trying to argue against using Fox as a news source.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432881,00.html

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

I was 22 when I started teaching and was teaching boys that were 19 and 20. My boyfriend at the time was actually younger than some of the kids I was teaching. Should I be on a sex offenders register?

Some of my friends were dating girls who were in their final year of school when they started teaching. Should they be forced to drop their relationships or face being listed as a sex offender?

No, it really doesn't. I pretty much got all of that out of the Fox article. But maybe that's because I'm intelligent enough to think for myself and don't need my news articles to spell things out in great, voluminous detail for me like I'm an idiot.

Really? You guessed what Keates had actually said, even though she is neither accurately quoted or accurately paraphrased in the Faux news article. Not only are you not an idiot, you are psychic.

You think giving a complete 3-4 sentence quote (instead of a 2 sentence half-quote) is unnecessary, voluminous detail?

I was 22 when I started teaching and was teaching boys that were 19 and 20. My boyfriend at the time was actually younger than some of the kids I was teaching. Should I be on a sex offenders register?

Some of my friends were dating girls who were in their final year of school when they started teaching. Should they be forced to drop their relationships or face being listed as a sex offender?

Dating people as young as students is not the same thing as dating students.

Which has been pointed out repeatedly. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. And I think that's about it.



Either way.







You should skim the thread before posting.

Dating people as young as students is not the same thing as dating students.

Which has been pointed out repeatedly. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. And I think that's about it.

Either way.

You should skim the thread before posting.

I like how it is Saint Jade's fault that the OP title, OP post, and OP article are misleading and/or disingenuous.

Really? You guessed what Keates had actually said, even though she is neither accurately quoted or accurately paraphrased in the Faux news article. Not only are you not an idiot, you are psychic.

You think giving a complete 3-4 sentence quote (instead of a 2 sentence half-quote) is unnecessary, voluminous detail?

I presumed that, since the article was only about a paragraph, that many other points and counter-points, as well as clarifications to the issue that would probably include cases that were more ambiguous that simple a teacher and his or her current student, but these points were irrelevant to the central issue at hand, which is: should teachers be held to a higher legal standard than others in the matters of sexual relationships within the workplace?

And even if I was a psychic idiot, I'd still be psychic. Stop masturbating while you fantasize about Rosie O'Donnell, hot wax, and horses. BOOO-WEEE-OOOP!


On a related note, haven't you gotten warned and/or banned for flaming before?

Which has been pointed out repeatedly.

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate why the difference is worth criminalizing, again and again. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

See, I can play the condescending just as well as you. You have shown any good reason why the punishment should be more than it already is.

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate why the difference is worth criminalizing, again and again. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

See, I can play the condescending just as well as you. You have shown any good reason why the punishment should be more than it already is.

I didn't say I did. Just that there is a difference and that the post in question was unnecessary.

As are both your above post and this one.

I presumed that, since the article was only about a paragraph, that many other points and counter-points, as well as clarifications to the issue that would probably include cases that were more ambiguous that simple a teacher and his or her current student, but these points were irrelevant to the central issue at hand, which is: should teachers be held to a higher legal standard than others in the matters of sexual relationships within the workplace?

And even if I was a psychic idiot, I'd still be psychic. Stop masturbating while you fantasize about Rosie O'Donnell, hot wax, and horses. BOOO-WEEE-OOOP!


On a related note, haven't you gotten warned and/or banned for flaming before?

1. I'm not sure why you insist on characterizing a six-paragraph story as containing only a paragraph. It must be the same judgment you use in claiming the Faux news article was fair.

2. If you think I've flamed you by saying you are NOT an idiot and joking that you must be psychic, please report me. FWIW, in my entire history of posting on these forums for several years, I've been official warned once for flamebaiting 1260 days ago and IIRC mildly told to knock it off by Mods once or twice. On the other hand, your "stop masturbating ...." comment is hardly constructive or proper.

3. As to the "central issue at hand" which is not emphasized by the OP but has only developed after tedious teeth-extracting argument by others in this thread, if a teacher has a relationship with a student FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL then that relationship is hardly "within the workplace," is it?

While I can work out your meaning I do feel the need to say: Dude, punctuation and grammar are your friends. Let them into your life, you won't regret it!

They used to pick on me when I was younger. Have they changed in the past 15 years?

Dating people as young as students is not the same thing as dating students.

Why? If they are as young as students, they could potentially be students. They obviously need the same protection as actual legally of age students. My boyfriend was considering returning to school. Should I have been forced to drop my relationship at that point or face criminal action? You also did not answer the point regarding my friends who were dating students in university, who would not be finished school by the time they were teaching? Should they be forced to make a very difficult decision, because some parents can't cope with the fact that their children are sexually mature adults who are legally able to consent?

Which has been pointed out repeatedly. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. And I think that's about it.

And obviously, if you or the article had answered this question satisfactorily, there would be no further discussion.

Either way.

You should skim the thread before posting.

I did. I didn't find a satisfactory answer. That's why I asked the questions.

Let me ask you this:
If two consenting (adult) close family members have a relationship, is that not completely different from two unrelated consenting adults? The answer is an unequivocal, resounding yes. Legality can be debated, but no one can debate that the relationship is somehow different.


You want to bet I can't?

Who said anything about revenge? Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And the rest was just the same argument that's been made over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without saying anything new or bothering to really address any counterpoints I've made.
You've made counterpoints? Where? All you've done is say, in effect, 'No, it's not' over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without adding WHY sleeping with a student should be prosecuted as a crime.

I do see the difference. I also see the similarity.

I really don't see why I should feel bad because someone themselves into trouble doing something they knew they shouldn't have, knowing the consequences, and having made a conscious decision to enter that career. If you don't like it, don't be a teacher. If you still want to be a teacher, don't have sex with a student. If you want to have sex with a student, you're an idiot and I have no sympathy for you.
Given that very few people enter the profession to have sex with students your argument means next to nothing. The question is one of, if someone does have sexual relations with one of their students, how should it be dealt with. The union's stated position is that criminal prosecution is not the answer and that because teachers currently ARE being so prosecuted for something that is not against the law for everyone else, this is an unjust situation. Again, where is the crime? Why should teachers be prosecuted for something that is not illegal for everyone else?

Teachers are not a people, teachers are a career. You can't compare them to a race or gender.
Ya know, that's the same bullshit answer I get from some folks opposed to gay marriage, i.e. 'Oh, we're not denying homosexuals the right to marry, they can marry anyone the want as long as its someone of the opposite gender so it's not unequal at all!'

The argument smells there as well as here.

I see what you did there.
Perhaps then you should think upon that and wisdom may come to you.

I see no compelling reason not to.

Yeah, see, that's...kinda not how the law is supposed to work. "Do we have a compelling reason not to criminalize the color orange? No? Okay, then, illegal! How about clams? Anyone have any really important reason not to ban eating clams? No? Illegal! And while we're at it, I don't really like the name 'Bob' - anyone know of a compelling reason being named Bob shouldn't be a crime?"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432881,00.html

Crazy teachers' unions. I swear I'm not joining one when I start teaching.

This does not seem crazy too me this is about fairly applying the law. The teacher is of course violating the trust placed upon him/her by doing so and as such should be bared from ever teaching again.

But reguardless of that they in fact did not break the law so there should be no penalty of law placed upon them for this.

Of course if the student did NOT consent or can show that they indeed were unduly influenced the full weight of the law should be applied just like anyone else that commits rape by force or under the threat of force

I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive (I do so love making that distinction). Regardless of whether or not it's right, it will be done because the gov't wants to protect its own ass (and there's nothing wrong with wanting that: we all want tend to like our asses to be unharmed). The morality of the practice is certainly up for debate, and we are, but here I was pointing out a reason for it.
But you're the one who started the thread saying that the teachers union is insane for trying to make teachers equal to everyone else with respect to this particular law, implying that you think it's right.

Power and authority are different things. A kidnapper has power over you, but no authority. Your favorite professor who is a mentor to you has no power over you, but does have a great deal of authority. The difference matters.
What are you talking about, professors have plenty of authority over students.

Yes there is. However, the end result in regard to their career as a teacher is the same.

Actually, it's not entirely the same, since you can conceivably get a job if you're just fired. Which is probably why they label them: to ensure that they don't.

Which is why you revoke teaching licenses, just like you do with doctors who sleep with patients (except they have a different license to revoke).

No, because, once again - and let me stress this part - going to college is voluntary. Professors are not authority figures. Teachers are.
Whether you're there voluntarily or not does not make them less of an authority figure.

I get whistled at on the street just for my hair (which is gorgeous, by the way). Take it as a compliment and move on, unless they go further.

I wouldn't say you deserve it, or that it's right, I would say it's going to happen anyways so you might as well get used to it.
Doesn't mean I have to like it.

1. I'm not sure why you insist on characterizing a six-paragraph story as containing only a paragraph. It must be the same judgment you use in claiming the Faux news article was fair.

It was hardly a page long. I'm not particularly claiming it's fair. I'm just wondering how talented they have to be to put as much bias as you seem to be finding in not even a page's worth of reporting.

2. If you think I've flamed you by saying you are NOT an idiot and joking that you must be psychic, please report me. FWIW, in my entire history of posting on these forums for several years, I've been official warned once for flamebaiting 1260 days ago and IIRC mildly told to knock it off by Mods once or twice. On the other hand, your "stop masturbating ...." comment is hardly constructive or proper.

Could have sworn I saw like, three threads about you. Must have been Andaras or Amor or some such.

Not constructive and improper, perhaps. But it was a joke. Want to see a magic trick and all that. Why so serious?

3. As to the "central issue at hand" which is not emphasized by the OP but has only developed after tedious teeth-extracting argument by others in this thread, if a teacher has a relationship with a student FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL then that relationship is hardly "within the workplace," is it?

It's still a teacher and it's still a student, and it was still a stupid decision on the teacher's part. Do I particularly think that teacher should go on the sex offender list? No. Is he still an idiot? Yes. Do I particularly care if he gets put on the sex offender list, even if I don't particularly agree? Not really.

Relevant: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434203,00.html

But you're the one who started the thread saying that the teachers union is insane for trying to make teachers equal to everyone else with respect to this particular law, implying that you think it's right.

I may have implied that I think this particular union is insane, but I never actually said anything conclusive connecting my sentiment about "crazy teachers' unions" with this particular case. I may very well hate other teachers' unions that I think are crazy.

What are you talking about, professors have plenty of authority over students.

Not nearly as much as teachers do over students.

Which is why you revoke teaching licenses, just like you do with doctors who sleep with patients (except they have a different license to revoke).

I never once disagreed with this.

Whether you're there voluntarily or not does not make them less of an authority figure.

It does, because it gives them a great deal of authority over you, since you can't be rid of them. If I don't like a professor, I can get a new one, find a new college, or stop going to class (which would probably result in failure; nonetheless, this option is not available to school-aged young adults). If someone in grade-school doesn't like a teacher, there's very little they can do about it, so they have to deal with them.

[quote]Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Never said you did.

I get it sometimes, too. Such is life. But I'm highly amused any time it happens, so it doesn't bother me too much.

I never once disagreed with this.

Whether you're there voluntarily or not does not make them less of an authority figure.

It does, because it gives them a great deal of authority over you, since you can't be rid of them. If I don't like a professor, I can get a new one, find a new college, or stop going to class (which would probably result in failure; nonetheless, this option is not available to school-aged young adults). If someone in grade-school doesn't like a teacher, there's very little they can do about it, so they have to deal with them.




Oh come on? Kids choose other options all the time. You saying you never wagged a day of school?

And I want you to answer my question: Should my friends have been forced to drop their relationships when they started teaching? Should I have been made to give up my boyfriend if he elected to return to formal education?

It was hardly a page long. I'm not particularly claiming it's fair. I'm just wondering how talented they have to be to put as much bias as you seem to be finding in not even a page's worth of reporting.

*sigh*

I've explained pratically paragraph by paragraph how it is skewed and you just ignored that post.

They took a biased tabloid article from the Daily Mail and edited it to be even more unfair. It didn't take any talent, just hackery.

Not constructive and improper, perhaps. But it was a joke. Want to see a magic trick and all that. Why so serious?

I see my joke that you were psychic was a flame. Your joke about me masturbating to horses is just a joke.

And the one making mod threats is telling me to lighten up?


It's still a teacher and it's still a student, and it was still a stupid decision on the teacher's part. Do I particularly think that teacher should go on the sex offender list? No. Is he still an idiot? Yes. Do I particularly care if he gets put on the sex offender list, even if I don't particularly agree? Not really.

So ..... what the Union person said about how that teacher should not go to jail or put on the sex offender list for a consensual relationship with an 18-year old that goes to a different school wasn't so crazy after all?

Especially since she added such a teacher would have made an error in professional judgment and should be appropriately disciplined?

So what was the point of your thread again?


Relevant: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434203,00.html

Um. Not relevant. Otherwise criminal activity carried out by a teacher, especially non-consensual sex crimes, are a whole different matter than what Ms. Keates spoke out about.

*sigh*

I've explained pratically paragraph by paragraph how it is skewed and you just ignored that post.

I didn't ignore it, I thought it was silly. I did actually respond to that, and I believe my response was something along the lines of "I didn't get any of that out of the article because I'm intelligent enough to think for myself and read between the lines".

They took a biased tabloid article from the Daily Mail and edited it to be even more unfair. It didn't take any talent, just hackery.

I'm pretty sure they just edited it to make it shorter.

I see my joke that you were psychic was a flame. Your joke about me masturbating to horses is just a joke.

Yep, that's how it works. There was a memo, I think.

And the one making mod threats is telling me to lighten up?

I wasn't making a threat, I was just wondering. When was the last time you saw me constructively participating in a thread in the mod forum? You could outright, blatantly flame you and I won't care. Unless it's clever. Then I would give you credit for being clever.

So ..... what the Union person said about how that teacher should not go to jail or put on the sex offender list for a consensual relationship with an 18-year old that goes to a different school wasn't so crazy after all?

As I said, "crazy teachers' unions" does not necessarily apply to this teachers' union. As well, there could be other reasons why I think they're crazy (maybe I think all teachers' unions are crazy; maybe I think British teachers' unions are crazy; maybe I think teachers, and therefore their unions by extension, are crazy).

So what was the point of your thread again?

To bring up a subject for discussion: what is an appropriate response to an affair between a teacher and a student; what are possible ways to prevent such affairs; why do such affairs happen; if the current response is inappropriate, why is it inappropriate and why is it the current response.

Haven't any of you ever heard of discussion? Not everything has to be a debate or have a definitive conclusion beyond intelligent discourse.

Oh, and also to see how many people would ignore all of the above and spend the entire thread ranting about Fox news.

Um. Not relevant. Otherwise criminal activity carried out by a teacher, especially non-consensual sex crimes, are a whole different matter than what Ms. Keates spoke out about.

Excuse me: related.

Oh come on? Kids choose other options all the time. You saying you never wagged a day of school?

One day out of a year and an entire semester are very different things.

And when you start skipping class in grade-school they send truancy officers after you.

And I want you to answer my question: Should my friends have been forced to drop their relationships when they started teaching? Should I have been made to give up my boyfriend if he elected to return to formal education?

Which question where now? Missed that first time around, apparently. Clarify?

I was 22 when I started teaching and was teaching boys that were 19 and 20. My boyfriend at the time was actually younger than some of the kids I was teaching. Should I be on a sex offenders register?

Some of my friends were dating girls who were in their final year of school when they started teaching. Should they be forced to drop their relationships or face being listed as a sex offender?

Why? If they are as young as students, they could potentially be students. They obviously need the same protection as actual legally of age students. My boyfriend was considering returning to school. Should I have been forced to drop my relationship at that point or face criminal action? You also did not answer the point regarding my friends who were dating students in university, who would not be finished school by the time they were teaching? Should they be forced to make a very difficult decision, because some parents can't cope with the fact that their children are sexually mature adults who are legally able to consent?



And obviously, if you or the article had answered this question satisfactorily, there would be no further discussion.



I did. I didn't find a satisfactory answer. That's why I asked the questions.


These would be the questions I am referring to in my previous post.

One day out of a year and an entire semester are very different things.

And when you start skipping class in grade-school they send truancy officers after you.



And that all depends on whether you are past the compulsory years of schooling or not. If you are, they tend not to care.

Let's get this straight:
Under British Law:
A Doctor can have consensual sex with their 16yr old patient and it's not a criminal offense.
A Lawyer can have consensual sex with their 16yr client and it's not a criminal offense.
A Coach can have consensual sex with their 16yr team member and it's not a criminal offense.
A Police Officer can have consensual sex with a 16yr and it's not a criminal offense.
BUT
If a teacher has consensual sex with an 18yr old from another school it is a criminal offense and that teacher's life will be destroyed. They will lose their job, be put on the sex offenders list and will never be able to work in Education (and many other fields) ever again.


Let's imagine a, albeitly extreme but not far-fetched, scenario:
Two teachers, Bob and Fred. Fresh out of Training College just turned 22. First year teaching.
Last week of the school year. Thursday, Bob and Fred decide to go out to celebrate. End up in a nightclub. Bob meets a sexy 18yr old woman, let's call her Sandra, and off they go to his place for a good night in.
Next night the lads are back out, really celebrating the end of the school year. This time Fred hooks up with Sandra (not too fussy is our Sandra) and does the biz.
Nothing wrong with that, is there? (leaving aside the morals of all 3)
Whoops.
Sandra is a student from a school in a nearby town 30km away. Friday is her final day at school.
So, under current British law, Bob is now a convicted paedophile for having had sex with a woman while Fred is perfectly fine for doing the exact same thing 24 hours later.
So for one of those teacher it's: Well done, my son! Scored again! Lucky bastard!
while for the other it's: You fucking filthy pervert! Get the hell away from my kids you animal before I set the dog on you!


And that's perfectly acceptable to you is it, Rhyno?

Let's get this straight:
Under British Law:
A Doctor can have consensual sex with their 16yr old patient and it's not a criminal offense.
A Lawyer can have consensual sex with their 16yr client and it's not a criminal offense.
A Coach can have consensual sex with their 16yr team member and it's not a criminal offense.
A Police Officer can have consensual sex with a 16yr and it's not a criminal offense.
BUT
If a teacher has consensual sex with an 18yr old from another school it is a criminal offense and that teacher's life will be destroyed. They will lose their job, be put on the sex offenders list and will never be able to work in Education (and many other fields) ever again.


Let's imagine a, albeitly extreme but not far-fetched, scenario:
Two teachers, Bob and Fred. Fresh out of Training College just turned 22. First year teaching.
Last week of the school year. Thursday, Bob and Fred decide to go out to celebrate. End up in a nightclub. Bob meets a sexy 18yr old woman, let's call her Sandra, and off they go to his place for a good night in.
Next night the lads are back out, really celebrating the end of the school year. This time Fred hooks up with Sandra (not too fussy is our Sandra) and does the biz.
Nothing wrong with that, is there? (leaving aside the morals of all 3)
Whoops.
Sandra is a student from a school in a nearby town 30km away. Friday is her final day at school.
So, under current British law, Bob is now a convicted paedophile for having had sex with a woman while Fred is perfectly fine for doing the exact same thing 24 hours later.
So for one of those teacher it's: Well done, my son! Scored again! Lucky bastard!
while for the other it's: You fucking filthy pervert! Get the hell away from my kids you animal before I set the dog on you!


And that's perfectly acceptable to you is it, Rhyno?

Do you know how very specific of a case that is? At this point you need to stop yelling at me and instead hope that the jury [of his peers] is intelligent.

As for me: that is a risk you take being a teacher. People judge you more harshly than they do people of other professions. If you don't like it, don't become a teacher.

A radical idea, I know. Not being a teacher. Crazy.

These would be the questions I am referring to in my previous post.

Prescriptive and descriptive.

Should they be labeled as sex offenders? Not necessarily. Might they me labeled as sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they should be? Yes.

And was your boyfriend legally emancipated, or otherwise independent of his parents? It makes a difference. Mind, I'm not saying you should be labeled as a sex offender, just that if you're going to start teaching, and you're dating someone who's still living with their parents, you should be careful.

Do you know how very specific of a case that is? At this point you need to stop yelling at me and instead hope that the jury [of his peers] is intelligent.

As for me: that is a risk you take being a teacher. People judge you more harshly than they do people of other professions. If you don't like it, don't become a teacher.

A radical idea, I know. Not being a teacher. Crazy.

Prescriptive and descriptive.

Should they be labeled as sex offenders? Not necessarily. Might they me labeled as sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they should be? Yes.

And was your boyfriend legally emancipated, or otherwise independent of his parents? It makes a difference. Mind, I'm not saying you should be labeled as a sex offender, just that if you're going to start teaching, and you're dating someone who's still living with their parents, you should be careful.

I see now that you've retreated from arguing what should be (with the exception of a not so subtle "wink wink nudge nudge") and resorted to "well, that's the way it is."

Wasn't the original point that got you in a tizzy was the suggestion that it shouldn't be that way anymore?

Not nearly as much as teachers do over students.


Just curious, but how much authority or power over a student FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL & WHO IS AN ADULT does a teacher have?

I mean lawyers have power over their clients, but not over anyone that might be anyone's client.

*repeat sentence above for doctors and any other authority figure*

...we don't?

damn.

Just curious, but how much authority or power over a student FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL & WHO IS AN ADULT does a teacher have?

I mean lawyers have power over their clients, but not over anyone that might be anyone's client.

*repeat sentence above for doctors and any other authority figure*

You forgot, they aren't authority figures, only teachers are for some reason.

While I recognize that Fox does, in fact, have a bias, I think the perception of a greater bias comes more from the fact that Fox tells people what they want to hear expecting them to be intelligent enough to understand that there is a bias there.

What part of "Fair and Balanced" gives you the impression that they're honest about their bias?

As for me: that is a risk you take being a teacher. People judge you more harshly than they do people of other professions. If you don't like it, don't become a teacher.

"That's the way it is, deal with it"?

Are you fucking kidding me?

"That's the way it is, deal with it"?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Well now, when you think about it that's really great advice. I'll bet she wishes every one had taken it. People like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or the Womens Suffrage movement . . .

Imagine the beautiful world we'd live in today if everyone had taken her advice of "That's the way it is, deal with it" to heart.

I think I broke my own sarcasm meter.

Prescriptive and descriptive.

Should they be labeled as sex offenders? Not necessarily. Might they me labeled as sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they should be? Yes.

And was your boyfriend legally emancipated, or otherwise independent of his parents? It makes a difference. Mind, I'm not saying you should be labeled as a sex offender, just that if you're going to start teaching, and you're dating someone who's still living with their parents, you should be careful.

He was 21. Didn't really occur to me to be concerned. Being that he was 3 years over the age of legal majority. Why does it matter where he was living? I already told you he was legally over the age of consent and not attending school; that is the only information that should be relevant.

My question is, why do you think it fine for me or anyone else to date someone who is not currently a student in a school, but not okay if they actually are a student at another school? Shouldn't you be saying that teachers should stay away from anyone who could potentially be a student of theirs, regardless of whether they are 16 or 66 (we have adult learners attending high schools in my country)? I personally am much more concerned at the idea of doctors dating their patients, or lawyers dating their clients than I am about a teacher dating a student of another school who is over the age of consent.

Well now, when you think about it that's really great advice. I'll bet she wishes every one had taken it. People like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or the Womens Suffrage movement . . .

Imagine the beautiful world we'd live in today if everyone had taken her advice of "That's the way it is, deal with it" to heart.

I think I broke my own sarcasm meter.

You have a low sarcasm meter. I know people who are far worse. Myself, for example.

Putting up with someone else's stupidity because "that's the way it is" is a stupid idea. Putting up with your own stupidity is also a bad idea because you should stop being an idiot. But it's your own stupidity and if you're not going to stop being stupid and expect other people to put up with it I have no sympathy for you.

Ghandi and all that: someone else's stupidity that they were forced to deal with.
Having an affair with a student: your own stupidity. Stop being stupid.

What part of "Fair and Balanced" gives you the impression that they're honest about their bias?

And any other news is any better at all? All news is biased. If you can't understand that, stop watching news.

"That's the way it is, deal with it"?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Once again, you don't have to actually deal with it. You can always - and this is a radical idea, I know - not become a teacher. And short of that you can always - even crazier - be intelligent enough to know that if you're a teacher and you have an affair with a student, people will get angry.

You forgot, they aren't authority figures, only teachers are for some reason.

It's a different kind of authority. For starters, lawyers, professors, and the like don't have to deal with their clients' or students' parents nearly as much. As well, their clients/students are generally much older, wiser, and more mature. Which also makes a difference.

So here's another concept that may be hard to grasp: People who are older are different than people who are younger, and relationships with themm - personal, profession, or anything else - reflect that difference.

Just curious, but how much authority or power over a student FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL & WHO IS AN ADULT does a teacher have?

More than someone who was not a teacher at all would have.

I mean lawyers have power over their clients, but not over anyone that might be anyone's client.

You choose your lawyers. You don't choose your teachers.

And if a family lawyer had an affair with the family's daughter, consenting or otherwise, and the parents would do their best to prosecute that lawyer to the fullest extent of the law.

I see now that you've retreated from arguing what should be (with the exception of a not so subtle "wink wink nudge nudge") and resorted to "well, that's the way it is."

I don't believe I was ever arguing what should be, so I have retreated from nothing.

Once again I ask you, don't you people ever just talk about something? Or do you turn everything into an argument that has a definitive winner and loser?

Wasn't the original point that got you in a tizzy was the suggestion that it shouldn't be that way anymore?

I'm in a tizzy? I wasn't aware.

...we don't?

damn.

You do, but thats because youre magic.

I don't think there should be an excuse even if the student is over the age of consent or 18 or anything along those lines: the position of a teacher over a student is a very important position of trust, not only with the student but also with the student's guardians.

I would say no. Then again, I would also remind you that employment is voluntary. A teacher-student relationship is different from a employer-employee relationship.

It's a different kind of power and trust. An employer is not an authority figure, not usually. Teachers are.

It's not the age that is in question: it's the position of the teacher that makes a difference.

Well obviously teachers should (according to the argument of those in favor of putting violators on the sex offender list) because it is necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of students and to ensure that the trust placed in teachers by students' guardians is not broken.

No. However, consider: many companies have a policy against inter-office relationships.

The difference is that employment in a specific place is voluntary. Being a student is not. Further, employees don't have legal guardians who put them in those positions.

Again, like companies, many colleges will fire a professor, or else greatly discourage such behavior.

Let me also say, for the record, that even if a student can consent, that's still a 5 or 6 year difference at least. And that's a bit creepy. The creepiness by age difference goes down the older the youngest is. At 18, in my opinion, even relatively low age differences are pretty creepy.

Not the same: Your parents are forcing you to be employed; your parents are allowing the gov't to force you to be a student.


I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive (I do so love making that distinction). Regardless of whether or not it's right, it will be done because the gov't wants to protect its own ass (and there's nothing wrong with wanting that: we all want tend to like our asses to be unharmed). The morality of the practice is certainly up for debate, and we are, but here I was pointing out a reason for it.

I'm pretty sure that being creepy is a factor. I mean, sure, it's possible to be labeled as a sex offender without being creepy, but the odds go up pretty fantastically depending on how creepy you are.

I certainly have the option of not joining a crazy union. Well, hopefully. There has to be at least one sane one, I hope.

Also: the creepiness gets exponentially less creepy the older the youngest is. So while it may have been creepy when you got married (depending on how old you both were), it is less creepy now (depending on how old you are).

Because teachers are different from the remainder of the population. The teacher-student relationship is a very unique relationship that does not exist anywhere else in society.

Dating people as young as students is not the same thing as dating students.

Which has been pointed out repeatedly. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. And I think that's about it.

It's still a teacher and it's still a student, and it was still a stupid decision on the teacher's part. Do I particularly think that teacher should go on the sex offender list? No. Is he still an idiot? Yes. Do I particularly care if he gets put on the sex offender list, even if I don't particularly agree? Not really.

It does, because it gives them a great deal of authority over you, since you can't be rid of them. If I don't like a professor, I can get a new one, find a new college, or stop going to class (which would probably result in failure; nonetheless, this option is not available to school-aged young adults). If someone in grade-school doesn't like a teacher, there's very little they can do about it, so they have to deal with them.

Do you know how very specific of a case that is? At this point you need to stop yelling at me and instead hope that the jury [of his peers] is intelligent.

As for me: that is a risk you take being a teacher. People judge you more harshly than they do people of other professions. If you don't like it, don't become a teacher.

A radical idea, I know. Not being a teacher. Crazy.

Prescriptive and descriptive.

Should they be labeled as sex offenders? Not necessarily. Might they me labeled as sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they should be? Yes.

And was your boyfriend legally emancipated, or otherwise independent of his parents? It makes a difference. Mind, I'm not saying you should be labeled as a sex offender, just that if you're going to start teaching, and you're dating someone who's still living with their parents, you should be careful.


It's a different kind of authority. For starters, lawyers, professors, and the like don't have to deal with their clients' or students' parents nearly as much. As well, their clients/students are generally much older, wiser, and more mature. Which also makes a difference.

So here's another concept that may be hard to grasp: People who are older are different than people who are younger, and relationships with themm - personal, profession, or anything else - reflect that difference.


More than someone who was not a teacher at all would have.


You choose your lawyers. You don't choose your teachers.

And if a family lawyer had an affair with the family's daughter, consenting or otherwise, and the parents would do their best to prosecute that lawyer to the fullest extent of the law.


I don't believe I was ever arguing what should be, so I have retreated from nothing.

I don't think further comment is necessary. RhynoD seems to be quite able to make statements that contradict each other without our assistance. :wink:

I don't think further comment is necessary. RhynoD seems to be quite able to make statements that contradict each other without our assistance. :wink:

I'd also like to make mention of his ignoring posts he seems to think are irrelevant, or that s/he simply doesn't like. ;)

Do you know how very specific of a case that is? At this point you need to stop yelling at me and instead hope that the jury [of his peers] is intelligent.

As for me: that is a risk you take being a teacher. People judge you more harshly than they do people of other professions. If you don't like it, don't become a teacher.

A radical idea, I know. Not being a teacher. Crazy.
I see the word, "scenario" is an alien concept to you. I also notice that now you whining that anyone contradicting you is 'yelling at you'. Poor diddums.

So now you're not in blanket favour of putting all errant teachers on the sex offenders list. You're certainly getting fit moving those goalposts about.

Here's another scenario:
Tracey is an 18yr old student, rather lose in the morals department (cookie btw for 1st person to know why I'm calling them Sandra and Tracey) and ethically challenged.
Over a course of, let's call it a month, she is:
1. Arrested for B&E but gets out of it by having sex with the cop;
2. Injured in a car accident and gets off paying the hospital bill by shagging the doctor;
3. Sees her lawyer over a different incident and pays him with the hairy chequebook;
4. Gets onto the school volleyball team by shagging the coach
5. and, last but not least, meets a guy in the pub and shags him. Said man-in-the-pub is a primary school teacher from a neighbouring town.

First four men, when this all comes to light, lose their jobs - as well they should , as their actions are in serious breach of the ethics of their occupations.
The 5th man, however, for doing nothing more than having sex with a stranger which in no way whatsoever affects his job not only loses his job but is prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders list.

Again, this is completely acceptable to you is it, RhynoD?
Could you also explain the difference there between what the 1st four men did and the 5th.
To wit:
Why is the 5th man's actions so much worse than the other 4 that it necessitates charging & prosecuting him and putting him on the Sex Offenders list?

I'd also like to make mention of his ignoring posts he seems to think are irrelevant, or that s/he simply doesn't like. ;)
Or if 'replying' to them ignoring the parts he can't answer and just either going off on a tangent or reiterating the same old tired excuses he gave the previous page. Excuses which has nothing to do with that particular post.

Or if 'replying' to them ignoring the parts he can't answer and just either going off on a tangent or reiterating the same old tired excuses he gave the previous page. Excuses which has nothing to do with that particular post.

Exactly.

And any other news is any better at all? All news is biased. If you can't understand that, stop watching news.

This is true. But it also doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Your comment was that Fox News expects its viewers to recognize the bias. Then I asked you which part of "Fair and Balanced" indicates Fox's being open about their bias.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Once again, you don't have to actually deal with it. You can always - and this is a radical idea, I know - not become a teacher. And short of that you can always - even crazier - be intelligent enough to know that if you're a teacher and you have an affair with a student, people will get angry.

"That's just the way it is" is never an excuse for anything. If your argument is worth defending, then surely you can come up with a better line than that.

I don't think further comment is necessary. RhynoD seems to be quite able to make statements that contradict each other without our assistance. :wink:

Are you actually going to provide analysis or just quote me a bunch of times and pretend you see some pattern?

You know, I looked through those, and I really don't see anything that contradicts anything else quoted.

Are you actually going to provide analysis or just quote me a bunch of times and pretend you see some pattern?

*sigh*

If it is really necessary, I'll try to find the time to point out some of the many instances you contradict yourself. I thought it was obvious. For example, on whether age is relevant to the discussion and on whether or not you ever made any prescriptive argument.

As for me: that is a risk you take being a teacher. People judge you more harshly than they do people of other professions. If you don't like it, don't become a teacher.

A radical idea, I know. Not being a teacher. Crazy.

There is a very, very big difference between being judged differently by your community and being punished more harshly by the law. Consider, many young people(and some older, but equally immature, people) have a double standard when it comes to sexual promiscuity and the like. I'm sure you're well aware of this. Does this mean that the age of consent should be different for boys and girls? I wouldn't think so, but following your line of reasoning, as I understand it, that would be the case.

This is true. But it also doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Your comment was that Fox News expects its viewers to recognize the bias. Then I asked you which part of "Fair and Balanced" indicates Fox's being open about their bias.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

I never said they were open about their bias.

"That's just the way it is" is never an excuse for anything. If your argument is worth defending, then surely you can come up with a better line than that.

It's not an excuse. But it makes me wonder why anyone who isn't a teacher cares: Someone stupid did something stupid and a stupid thing happened to him. Go figure.

There is a very, very big difference between being judged differently by your community and being punished more harshly by the law. Consider, many young people(and some older, but equally immature, people) have a double standard when it comes to sexual promiscuity and the like. I'm sure you're well aware of this. Does this mean that the age of consent should be different for boys and girls? I wouldn't think so, but following your line of reasoning, as I understand it, that would be the case.

Once again, being a boy or a girl is [mostly] not voluntary. Being a teacher is.

Education in the UK for people 16+ is voluntary, so the student has chosen to be in education.
The age of consent in the UK is 16.
A person choosing to be in education and is of legal age has chosen to have sex with another person of legal age.
I see no issue with that. They should not be placed on the sex offenders register, they have legally done nothing wrong. Whether their work place then decides to do something is up to them, but the teacher should not have any legal action taken against them because, as already said, legally they've done nothing wrong.

Once again, being a boy or a girl is [mostly] not voluntary. Being a teacher is.

So? If we're making people unequal in the eyes of the law then what does it matter if they've chosen to be in their position?

So? If we're making people unequal in the eyes of the law then what does it matter if they've chosen to be in their position?

Because the subject is imposing the choice upon himself.

What you're arguing is essentially: Well, we can't put murderers in prison because that would be imposing an unequal law against people who kill other people.

Or less extreme: We can't require teachers to have certifications because, say, Burger Shot doesn't require certifications to flip burgers.

Or: Gov't orphanages give unequal treatment to children who don't have parents.

Because the subject is imposing the choice upon himself.

What you're arguing is essentially: Well, we can't put murderers in prison because that would be imposing an unequal law against people who kill other people.

No, it more along the lines of "We can't give the death penalty to black people who deal drugs because white people who deal the same drugs only face jail time."

What you're arguing is essentially: Well, we can't put murderers in prison because that would be imposing an unequal law against people who kill other people.

That's not at all what he's arguing. It's the same law for the same crime, you just want it to be applied differently depending on the employment of the suspect. You still have done nothing to demonstrate why it is necessary to apply the law differently in the case of teachers, despite your incorrect belief that you have. Show us why teachers need to be punished under the law for something that is not against the law.

I never said they were open about their bias.

Poor choice of wording on my part. But you did state that they expected people to realize the bias. This however, is an interesting claim as their slogan "Fair and Balanced" would seem to contradict their expectation for people to see past the bias.

It's not an excuse. But it makes me wonder why anyone who isn't a teacher cares: Someone stupid did something stupid and a stupid thing happened to him. Go figure.

Injustice is injustice. Period. There need not be another reason.

What if you're having sex with a 16 year old on a regular basis and he changes schools and becomes a student? Is there a grandfather clause in the case of pre-existing relationships? :p

What if you're having sex with a 16 year old on a regular basis and he changes schools and becomes a student? Is there a grandfather clause in the case of pre-existing relationships? :p

Is that like where you travel back in time and become your own rapist?

What if you're having sex with a 16 year old on a regular basis and he changes schools and becomes a student? Is there a grandfather clause in the case of pre-existing relationships? :p

Why do you ask? Are you worried about something?

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been addressed, but it seems to me that if you are a teacher who has sex with a student below the age of consent, you should be registered as a sex offender and fired/stripped of your credential. If you're a teacher who has sex with a student above the age of consent, only the latter should happen, since it isn't statutory rape anymore--but still a violation of the job.

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been addressed, but it seems to me that if you are a teacher who has sex with a student below the age of consent, you should be registered as a sex offender and fired/stripped of your credential. If you're a teacher who has sex with a student above the age of consent, only the latter should happen, since it isn't statutory rape anymore--but still a violation of the job.

And most of the people in this thread agree with you. RhynoD, however, wishes to make the latter situation a sex crime as well as the former.

RhynoD, however, wishes to make the latter situation a sex crime as well as the former.

Since when? I never once said I think it should be a sex crime. In fact, I have said repeatedly that my opinion on the subject is that I definitively don't care. So I really don't know where you're getting this idea that I want it to be a sex crime.

Or have you actually read my posts?

That's not at all what he's arguing. It's the same law for the same crime, you just want it to be applied differently depending on the employment of the suspect. You still have done nothing to demonstrate why it is necessary to apply the law differently in the case of teachers, despite your incorrect belief that you have. Show us why teachers need to be punished under the law for something that is not against the law.

But those who do consider it to be a sex crime consider it a different law for a different crime. Sex with a student, as opposed to sex with an employee, coworker, or someone over the age of consent who is nonetheless much younger, is a violation of the trust placed in teachers by the students' parents. That bond of trust does not exist anywhere else in society. It is a unique position, and so a harsher sentence reflects this uniqueness.

No, it more along the lines of "We can't give the death penalty to black people who deal drugs because white people who deal the same drugs only face jail time."

Once again, and I really don't understand how this is not clear: your race is not voluntary. Your job is.

But those who do consider it to be a sex crime consider it a different law for a different crime. Sex with a student, as opposed to sex with an employee, coworker, or someone over the age of consent who is nonetheless much younger, is a violation of the trust placed in teachers by the students' parents. That bond of trust does not exist anywhere else in society. It is a unique position, and so a harsher sentence reflects this uniqueness.
So the family doctor with whom the parents have entrusted the well-being and care of their child to does not have a bond of trust with that child's parents that is comparable to that of a teacher then?

Regardless, you're still missing the point here: It's not just a crime for the teacher to have consensual sex with their student but any teacher. As the law stands, even a Kindergarten school teacher having consensual sex with an 18yr old student can be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders list. Mind explaining just how this is a violation of the parents trust?

btw, both me and Saint Jade are still waiting for you to answer our previous posts. We're not holding our respective breaths, as your past posting history shows you either: A. Ignore posts which you can't answer; or B. Go on and on and on about a point that's nothing to do with the post in question.

Because the subject is imposing the choice upon himself.

What you're arguing is essentially: Well, we can't put murderers in prison because that would be imposing an unequal law against people who kill other people.
No he's not. It's more, "the punishment for double-parking is a $50 fine except for lumberjacks who get 20 years in max security".
Well in that case, RhynoD argues, you can just decide NOT to be a lumberjack.
Well, gee. that's solved that problem. Nothing wrong with that law as it stands. People who CHOOSE to be lumberjacks thus accept the laws that are in place.

Because the subject is imposing the choice upon himself.
So teachers choose to be unequal in the eyes of the law? Really?

What you're arguing is essentially: Well, we can't put murderers in prison because that would be imposing an unequal law against people who kill other people.
Choosing to be a teacher is the same as killing someone?

Or less extreme: We can't require teachers to have certifications because, say, Burger Shot doesn't require certifications to flip burgers.
That two different jobs have two different required skillsets is not relevant to how it is wrong to punish someone more harshly for the same crime simply because of their job.

Or: Gov't orphanages give unequal treatment to children who don't have parents.
Oh? So if some kid from an orphanage steals a car, he'll get more jail time than a kid with parents?
No, it more along the lines of "We can't give the death penalty to black people who deal drugs because white people who deal the same drugs only face jail time."
That.
What if you're having sex with a 16 year old on a regular basis and he changes schools and becomes a student? Is there a grandfather clause in the case of pre-existing relationships? :p
If there isn't, there should be.
Since when? I never once said I think it should be a sex crime. In fact, I have said repeatedly that my opinion on the subject is that I definitively don't care. So I really don't know where you're getting this idea that I want it to be a sex crime.

Or have you actually read my posts?
You've been saying that it's ok, in your opinion, for teachers to be treated differently in the eyes of the law than anyone else.



But those who do consider it to be a sex crime consider it a different law for a different crime. Sex with a student, as opposed to sex with an employee, coworker, or someone over the age of consent who is nonetheless much younger, is a violation of the trust placed in teachers by the students' parents. That bond of trust does not exist anywhere else in society. It is a unique position, and so a harsher sentence reflects this uniqueness.
No, the sentence only exists in that situation. If anyone except a teacher has sex with a student over the age of consent, there will be no legal consequences. When a teacher does it, it's a sex crime and they are branded as a child molester.

Seriously, read that bit carefully. Consentual sex, in the legal and lay sense of the word, makes you a child molester. You are legally on par with a priest who raped a 12 year altar boy.

Speaking of which, are priests punished in a similar fashion if they have consentual sex with a member of their congregation? Surely the relationship between a spiritual leader and those he/she leads is as unique as the teacher/student relationship?



Once again, and I really don't understand how this is not clear: your race is not voluntary. Your job is.

And this makes it ok to discriminate against teachers because......?

So the family doctor with whom the parents have entrusted the well-being and care of their child to does not have a bond of trust with that child's parents that is comparable to that of a teacher then?

That may possibly be the single other example of such a relationship. Even that, however, is different from a teacher. A more appropriate analogy would be if a doctor gave your kid syphilis.

Regardless, you're still missing the point here: It's not just a crime for the teacher to have consensual sex with their student but any teacher. As the law stands, even a Kindergarten school teacher having consensual sex with an 18yr old student can be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders list. Mind explaining just how this is a violation of the parents trust?

And you're missing my point, which is that what is illegal is defined by what laws are enacted. If a law makes it illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student, then it is illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student.

btw, both me and Saint Jade are still waiting for you to answer our previous posts. We're not holding our respective breaths, as your past posting history shows you either: A. Ignore posts which you can't answer; or B. Go on and on and on about a point that's nothing to do with the post in question.

Which questions? I've answered like, three sets of questions. Which questions haven't I answered? Spell it out. Stop being vague.

No he's not. It's more, "the punishment for double-parking is a $50 fine except for lumberjacks who get 20 years in max security".

No, it's more like the punishment for double-parking is $50 unless you're the policeman in charge of handling parking violations: then the punishment is double the fine and you lose your job.

20 years max security? That's just ridiculous.

Well in that case, RhynoD argues, you can just decide NOT to be a lumberjack.
Well, gee. that's solved that problem. Nothing wrong with that law as it stands. People who CHOOSE to be lumberjacks thus accept the laws that are in place.

You're right, it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that people who double-park are retarded. Solve that problem and you won't need any fines, lumberjack or otherwise.

Sex with a student, as opposed to sex with an employee, coworker, or someone over the age of consent who is nonetheless much younger, is a violation of the trust placed in teachers by the students' parents. That bond of trust does not exist anywhere else in society. It is a unique position, and so a harsher sentence reflects this uniqueness.

What about when a doctor has sex with a patient? When a pastor has sex with a parishioner? Parents place trust in both of these people when they put their children in their care.

As the law stands, even a Kindergarten school teacher having consensual sex with an 18yr old student can be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders list. Mind explaining just how this is a violation of the parents trust?

Wait, what? I don't see how that's possible, unless they're at the same school, and I don't know of many schools that teach grades K-12.

What about when a doctor has sex with a patient? When a pastor has sex with a parishioner? Parents place trust in both of these people when they put their children in their care.
no no no no. That's completely different see?
A teacher having consensual sex with a student is not the same as a docotr having consensual sex with their patient. NO! It's the same as a Doctor giving a child syphilis. Can't you see that?
It's so blindingly obvious, I don't why I didn't see it before!

So teachers choose to be unequal in the eyes of the law? Really?

Yep.

Choosing to be a teacher is the same as killing someone?

Please. You should know better.

That two different jobs have two different required skillsets is not relevant to how it is wrong to punish someone more harshly for the same crime simply because of their job.

But! But! The law is different for the teacher! The teacher has to have a certification!

Oh? So if some kid from an orphanage steals a car, he'll get more jail time than a kid with parents?

Not at all where I was going with that.
Do children who are not orphans get all that free food and fantastic scholarship opportunities?

That.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14091656&postcount=143).

You've been saying that it's ok, in your opinion, for teachers to be treated differently in the eyes of the law than anyone else.

No, I've been saying I don't care if it's ok or not.

No, the sentence only exists in that situation. If anyone except a teacher has sex with a student over the age of consent, there will be no legal consequences. When a teacher does it, it's a sex crime and they are branded as a child molester.

Seriously, read that bit carefully. Consentual sex, in the legal and lay sense of the word, makes you a child molester. You are legally on par with a priest who raped a 12 year altar boy.

Sex offender does not necessarily mean child molester. It means sex offender, which includes a wide range of offenses, which, apparently, includes having sex with a student while holding the official occupation of "teacher".

Speaking of which, are priests punished in a similar fashion if they have consentual sex with a member of their congregation? Surely the relationship between a spiritual leader and those he/she leads is as unique as the teacher/student relationship?

What about the word "voluntary" is hard to understand?

That said, if a priest has an affair with someone and that person's parents object, I would imagine they would prosecute that priest to the fullest extent of any possible legal loophole of any possibly applicable law.

And this makes it ok to discriminate against teachers because......?

Because it's not discrimination. That the offender is a teacher makes a difference. "Teacher" is a different job than "professor" or "cattle rancher" so teachers are treated differently.

no no no no. That's completely different see?
A teacher having consensual sex with a student is not the same as a docotr having consensual sex with their patient. NO! It's the same as a Doctor giving a child syphilis. Can't you see that?
It's so blindingly obvious, I don't why I didn't see it before!

Your sarcasm needs work. Mine is so much better.

I mean really, do any of you actually know the definition of the word voluntary?

Or have you actually read my posts?

Yes, I've read your posts. Spare me your condescending bullshit. I've read each of your posts and you've yet to demonstrate in any way why teachers should be treated differently, other than some irrelevant crap about how a job is voluntary. I've watched you change your position multiple times in increasingly embarassing attempts to defend your very undefendable position.

The fact is that a teacher having a relationship with a student of age has committed exactly zero crimes, and anyone attempt to make it a crime for one subset of people is wrong, regardless of whatever entirely meaningless crap you have to say about jobs being choices. It is, in fact, a different application of the law for one group of people. That is wrong, no matter what.

That may possibly be the single other example of such a relationship. Even that, however, is different from a teacher. A more appropriate analogy would be if a doctor gave your kid syphilis.
That is not an appropriate analogy at all. Having sex with someone is not the antithesis of teaching in the way that infecting someone with syphilis is the antithesis of healing them.



And you're missing my point, which is that what is illegal is defined by what laws are enacted. If a law makes it illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student, then it is illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student.
Way to ignore the point with a tautology. I'll try making the point. You are saying that teachers have a unique bond of trust with the parents of the children they teach, and thus a greater punishment for violating that trust is justified. However, the greater punishment for having sex with a student applies to ALL teachers. If a 18 year old student has sex with a teacher from the other side of the country who happens to be visiting that town, then that teacher will be placed on the sex offender's register.


No, it's more like the punishment for double-parking is $50 unless you're the policeman in charge of handling parking violations: then the punishment is double the fine and you lose your job.
No, it isn't.

20 years max security? That's just ridiculous.
As is life on the sex offender's register for consentual sex, which is why it's a apt comparison.

Wait, what? I don't see how that's possible, unless they're at the same school, and I don't know of many schools that teach grades K-12.

Kindergarten teacher could meet a student in a local nightclub or pub.

I mean really, do any of you actually know the definition of the word voluntary?

We understand the meaning. Do you understand the meaning of the word irrelevant?

I mean really, do any of you actually know the definition of the word voluntary?

Explain why it is relevant and I'll check the dictionary to be sure I have it right.

Your sarcasm needs work. Mine is so much better.
really? You must post some, sometime. I've yet to see any.

But then I've yet to see a rational coherent and sustainable argument from you, so again I won't be holding my breath.

Yes, I've read your posts. Spare me your condescending bullshit. I've read each of your posts and you've yet to demonstrate in any way why teachers should be treated differently, other than some irrelevant crap about how a job is voluntary. I've watched you change your position multiple times in increasingly embarassing attempts to defend your very undefendable position.

And which position would that be?

Because I've watched you make increasingly embarrassing attempts to define what my position is. It would be awfully convenient for you if I held a position that was undefendable. Which, for the record, isn't a word.

The fact is that a teacher having a relationship with a student of age has committed exactly zero crimes, and anyone attempt to make it a crime for one subset of people is wrong, regardless of whatever entirely meaningless crap you have to say about jobs being choices. It is, in fact, a different application of the law for one group of people. That is wrong, no matter what.

We make having sex with a subset of people (who are under the age of consent) a crime. Discrimination!

Which questions? I've answered like, three sets of questions. Which questions haven't I answered? Spell it out. Stop being vague.
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware I was chatting with a person incapable of using the 'back page' function at the top and bottom of the screen. Here, to save you the trouble learning new technology:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14080056&postcount=107

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14086151&postcount=123

really? You must post some, sometime. I've yet to see any.

But then I've yet to see a rational coherent and sustainable argument from you, so again I won't be holding my breath.

Clearly my sarcasm is so sarcastic that it's going over your head.

Holy Statutory, Batman! What´s this argument all about?:D

Holy Statutory, Batman! What´s this argument all about?:D

Sarcasm it seems.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware I was chatting with a person incapable of using the 'back page' function at the top and bottom of the screen. Here, to save you the trouble learning new technology:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14080056&postcount=107

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14086151&postcount=123

Oh, don't kid yourself. I'm just lazy. Really lazy.

So. I've totally answered those questions already:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14081348&postcount=110
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14081355&postcount=111

Sarcasm it seems.

I see. I thought it was about statutory rape and shyte.

And which position would that be?

Because I've watched you make increasingly embarrassing attempts to define what my position is. It would be awfully convenient for you if I held a position that was undefendable. Which, for the record, isn't a word.
Wrong again:
undefendable:
adjective
not defended or capable of being defended; "an open city"; "open to attack"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=undefendable


We make having sex with a subset of people (who are under the age of consent) a crime. Discrimination!
Oh, so now it's become having sex with a student under the age of consent. Did you even read the article you posted? It was making a crime out having CONSESUAL sex with a person OVER the age of consent.

Really, is there anything you can get correct?

Sarcasm it seems.

You would think that, wouldn't you?

And which position would that be?

Your position that it is okay to treat teachers differently under the law.

We make having sex with a subset of people (who are under the age of consent) a crime. Discrimination!

Here you go embarassing yourself. It is discriminatory to make an act criminal for one subset of people and not another. To make an act criminal for everyone, equally, would not, by definition, be discriminatory.

To say that it should be a crime for teachers to have sex with those above the age of consent when it is not against the law for anyone else is discriminatory.

Yep.
I dare say most teachers will disagree with you. I doubt there's mention of that in any kind of job description.



Please. You should know better
I should know what you meant better? Sorry, all I can do is interpret what you post, I can't read you mind and divine your intentions psychically.


But! But! The law is different for the teacher! The teacher has to have a certification!
Is that actually a matter of law, or just government hiring policy?



Not at all where I was going with that.
Then do try to keep your comparisons relevant
Do children who are not orphans get all that free food and fantastic scholarship opportunities?
I wouldn't know. Doesn't every child with a capable parent get free food? Are scholarships a matter of law, or just the policies of the organisations who give them?


No, I've been saying I don't care if it's ok or not.
Then why do you keep arguing with the various people who think it's wrong? Trolling? Insatiable boredom? Obscure sexual kink?


Sex offender does not necessarily mean child molester. It means sex offender, which includes a wide range of offenses, which, apparently, includes having sex with a student while holding the official occupation of "teacher".
I'll grant you that, but people will jump to that conclusion.



What about the word "voluntary" is hard to understand?
How it is relevant to the topic at hand.

That said, if a priest has an affair with someone and that person's parents object, I would imagine they would prosecute that priest to the fullest extent of any possible legal loophole of any possibly applicable law.
If that person is of age then the their sole legal recourse would be to get told by the police or a lawyer that they're wasting their time and there are no laws against a priest having sex with someone of age.

Because it's not discrimination. That the offender is a teacher makes a difference. "Teacher" is a different job than "professor" or "cattle rancher" so teachers are treated differently.

"Liberal" is different to "conservative", so liberals get double the jailtime that a conservative would in the same situation. Perfectly reasonable. :rolleyes:

You would think that, wouldn't you?

"Oh, a SARCASM detector! There's a USEFUL invention!"

*Boom*

undefendable:
adjective
not defended or capable of being defended; "an open city"; "open to attack"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=undefendable

Dictionary.com lied to me. I swear to God I searched for "defendable" and it gave me nothing.

Oh, so now it's become having sex with a student under the age of consent. Did you even read the article you posted? It was making a crime out having CONSESUAL sex with a person OVER the age of consent.

So my comparing discriminating against underage children is completely different from comparing teachers to doctors.

Really, is there anything you can get correct?

Many things. Sarcasm, for example.

Wait, what? I don't see how that's possible, unless they're at the same school, and I don't know of many schools that teach grades K-12.
Mostly small, fairly rural towns where there is no need for more than a K-12. Where I lived for the first half of my life, the school was K-12, though I think in the past few years they are looking at spinning off some part of it into another school.

Your position that it is okay to treat teachers differently under the law.

That is, in fact, not my position, nor has it ever been.

Here you go embarassing yourself. It is discriminatory to make an act criminal for one subset of people and not another. To make an act criminal for everyone, equally, would not, by definition, be discriminatory.

So it's equal to say that someone can only have sex if they're above a certain age? Doesn't sound very equal to me. In fact, it sounds like it's treating two different subsets of people very different: People over the age of consent and people under the age of consent.

To say that it should be a crime for teachers to have sex with those above the age of consent when it is not against the law for anyone else is discriminatory.

Is is discriminatory to say that someone who is black is more likely to have sickle-cell anemia?

I dare say most teachers will disagree with you. I doubt there's mention of that in any kind of job description.

And interesting suppositon. How many teachers do you know?

I should know what you meant better? Sorry, all I can do is interpret what you post, I can't read you mind and divine your intentions psychically.

It's a deliberate misinterpretation and you know it.

Is that actually a matter of law, or just government hiring policy?

Law, actually. At least, it is where I intend to be teaching.

Then do try to keep your comparisons relevant.

Irrelevant and misunderstood are different things.

I wouldn't know. Doesn't every child with a capable parent get free food?

Nope. Or at least, those with poor parents get less food.

Are scholarships a matter of law, or just the policies of the organisations who give them?

I was actually referring to federal scholarships, which, obviously, is no a private organization.

Then why do you keep arguing with the various people who think it's wrong? Trolling? Insatiable boredom? Obscure sexual kink?

Once again, and I've already asked this twice: can't you people just talk about something? Is everything an argument to you? Does someone have to win? Or can't you just discuss various points and sides for the purposes of expanding your intellect?

I'll grant you that, but people will jump to that conclusion.

Yes. So. Is this my fault? Is this the government's fault? Or is this stupid, ignorant citizens' fault? If the latter, shouldn't you be arguing with them instead of me, since I do not jump to that conclusion?

How it is relevant to the topic at hand.

Teachers know what they're getting into. They have a choice not to be a teacher, and therefore have the choice to avoid any and all applications of any law or practice that labels teachers as sex offenders for having an affair with a student.

Blacks, gays, women, midgets, etc. do not have that choice. The situation being discussed is inherently different.

If that person is of age then the their sole legal recourse would be to get told by the police or a lawyer that they're wasting their time and there are no laws against a priest having sex with someone of age.

Now, you'd think that, but there's always that pesky "jury of your peers" thing.

"Liberal" is different to "conservative", so liberals get double the jailtime that a conservative would in the same situation. Perfectly reasonable. :rolleyes:

It is if liberals hold a special position over other people that conservatives don't. Or vice versa. It's almost like how people get more upset about scandals within the party presently in power...

That is, in fact, not my position, nor has it ever been.

Then you've done a poor job explaining your position, as no one has figured out exactly what the hell you're on about in this thread.


So it's equal to say that someone can only have sex if they're above a certain age? Doesn't sound very equal to me. In fact, it sounds like it's treating two different subsets of people very different: People over the age of consent and people under the age of consent.

There is no law against people under the age of consent having sex. Your failure to understand the law, or even the word discriminatory, do not change the fact that you are advocating that an act should be criminal for one group of people and not another.


Is is discriminatory to say that someone who is black is more likely to have sickle-cell anemia?

No, but that would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion, now wouldn't it?

Then you've done a poor job explaining your position, as no one has figured out exactly what the hell you're on about in this thread.

I've explained my position countless times already.

My position is that I don't care, because either way the offending teacher is an idiot.

That doesn't make it ok. That makes me apathetic. Difference.

There is no law against people under the age of consent having sex.

It is not possible, according to your ideology of nondiscrimination, for someone who is under the age of consent to have sex without anyone going to jail for it.

Your failure to understand the law, or even the word discriminatory, do not change the fact that you are advocating that an act should be criminal for one group of people and not another.

Once again, I'm not advocating anything except my own apathy.

And I can also accuse you of not understanding words. That doesn't make me right.

Even if it were true, it wouldn't make me wrong, it would just make me stupid. And even if I was stupid I could be right.

No, but that would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion, now wouldn't it?

So would asking anything about doctors and professors, now, wouldn't it?

I've explained my position countless times already.

My position is that I don't care, because either way the offending teacher is an idiot.

That doesn't make it ok. That makes me apathetic. Difference.

So you're playing devil's advocate in the most trolling way possible?


It is not possible, according to your ideology of nondiscrimination, for someone who is under the age of consent to have sex without anyone going to jail for it.

If a 14 year old boy and a 14 year old girl have sex, who goes to jail?


Once again, I'm not advocating anything except my own apathy.

And I can also accuse you of not understanding words. That doesn't make me right.

Even if it were true, it wouldn't make me wrong, it would just make me stupid. And even if I was stupid I could be right.

Regardless, you are wrong, whether you wish to dissociate yourself from the position you're arguing by means of "apathy" or not.



So would asking anything about doctors and professors, now, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure. You'd have to point out where I brought anything like that up.

So you're playing devil's advocate in the most trolling way possible?

You could say that. I would deny it, but you can say it.

If a 14 year old boy and a 14 year old girl have sex, who goes to jail?

They both had sex with someone under the age of consent. Which, according to law, makes them both sex offenders.

Unless, of course, it's only illegal for someone who is over the age of consent to have sex with someone under the age of consent. But then, that would be treating people differently according to their age. Ageist.

Regardless, you are wrong, whether you wish to dissociate yourself from the position you're arguing by means of "apathy" or not.

No, you're wrong. Or are we not falling back on the "Because I Said So" strategy of argument?

I'm not sure. You'd have to point out where I brought anything like that up.

Someone did. Something about doctors having sex with patients not being any different than teachers having sex with students.

You could say that. I would deny it, but you can say it.


Then I'll consider you trolling and end my participation in this thread. Enjoy being right in only your own mind.

Then I'll consider you trolling and end my participation in this thread. Enjoy being right in only your own mind.

If I had an euro for every time Rhyno´s been called one, I would be a millionaire.:D

If I had an euro for every time Rhyno´s been called one, I would be a millionaire.:D

Actually, you'd probably be surprised to find out how seldom it really is.

Once again, and I really don't understand how this is not clear: your race is not voluntary. Your job is.

Do I need to get you a ladder so you can reach the point that is continually sailing over your head?

Do I need to get you a ladder so you can reach the point that is continually sailing over your head?

I think you need it more than me.

I was 22 when I started teaching and was teaching boys that were 19 and 20. My boyfriend at the time was actually younger than some of the kids I was teaching. Should I be on a sex offenders register?

Some of my friends were dating girls who were in their final year of school when they started teaching. Should they be forced to drop their relationships or face being listed as a sex offender?

Why? If they are as young as students, they could potentially be students. They obviously need the same protection as actual legally of age students. My boyfriend was considering returning to school. Should I have been forced to drop my relationship at that point or face criminal action? You also did not answer the point regarding my friends who were dating students in university, who would not be finished school by the time they were teaching? Should they be forced to make a very difficult decision, because some parents can't cope with the fact that their children are sexually mature adults who are legally able to consent?


Ahem? Answers?

Why do you ask? Are you worried about something?

Can you even do that? I mean the raping yourself bit not the travel back in time bit.

That is, in fact, not my position, nor has it ever been.
Yet you continue to argue with everyone who has a problem with teachers being treated more harshly. Really, what's your motivation here? Trolling? Epic boredom? Obscure sexual kink?

The union is right. It is an anomaly. As its over the age of consent, it should be dealt through by means other than putting the teacher on the Sex Offenders register. Just another example of the right-wing media distorting reasonable proposals into some sort of scandal so that they can mutter about political correctness and "the world going mad". Of course, relationships with students are highly unprofessional and the teacher should be punished, but the proposal isn't for stopping punishment, merely making punishment consistent.

Absolutely. If no crime has been committed, then nobody can be criminally prosecuted. This "Sex Offender" label is being applied far too lightly, with the inevitable consequence that it will eventually not be taken seriously anymore - and real offenders get off free.

Although I would fire the teacher for unprofessional conduct. This behavior reflects extremely badly on the school - especially since the students are dependent on the teachers' assessment, which implies bribery or even blackmail. The old saw about "getting an A+ for Oral Participation" is not that funny when it really happens.

Yet you continue to argue with everyone who has a problem with teachers being treated more harshly. Really, what's your motivation here? Trolling? Epic boredom? Obscure sexual kink?

Argumentum ad nauseuam?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14091797#post14091797

Ahem? Answers?

Already did.

Not so unreasonable, I think.

Actually, outside of the usual, there are several professional ethics issues at hand, especially if the teacher is currently in charge of a class in which the student is participating, but also broadly, because teachers usually have authority for discipline and arbitration throughout the school.

For an extreme metaphor, would we want a judge to be sleeping with the prosecutor on a capital murder case?

Your position that it is okay to treat teachers differently under the law.

I daresay we should hold any and all government officials in whom the public puts their trust to a higher standard. I'm quite certain that this sentiment has been expressed in relation to the police, and I see a similar argument as being acceptable in the case of teachers. If they violate the law because of the position they have been given by the people, I would hope that they be held to a higher standard.

Actually, outside of the usual, there are several professional ethics issues at hand, especially if the teacher is currently in charge of a class in which the student is participating, but also broadly, because teachers usually have authority for discipline and arbitration throughout the school.

Except, if you read the article this thread is based on, this applies even if the student (who as has been repeatedly stated IS of legal age to be fucked by anyone else) goes to a school the teacher doesn't teach at.

Already did.

The only answer that you gave is that teachers involved in relationships with school-age children above the age of consent should be extremely careful if said young people are living at home. Which does not answer my question in the slightest. Which leads me to believe that you have no idea what you actually believe, and cannot provide any argument against them continuing their relationships.

Which also flies in the face of your previous arguments in this thread.

The only answer that you gave is that teachers involved in relationships with school-age children above the age of consent should be extremely careful if said young people are living at home. Which does not answer my question in the slightest. Which leads me to believe that you have no idea what you actually believe, and cannot provide any argument against them continuing their relationships.

Which also flies in the face of your previous arguments in this thread.

There's your answer: No one should be forced to do anything or be put on any list because everyone should be smart enough to keep themselves off the list.

There's your answer: No one should be forced to do anything or be put on any list because everyone should be smart enough to keep themselves off the list.

In other words, teachers should be asking for proof of age and employment before dating anyone. Or maybe teachers should only date other teachers. Just in case they might potentially possibly be a student.

Or should we just all be spinsters and bachelors?

In other words, teachers should be asking for proof of age and employment before dating anyone. Or maybe teachers should only date other teachers. Just in case they might potentially possibly be a student.

Or should we just all be spinsters and bachelors?

Or, you know, don't be a teacher. Crazy, isn't it?

And you know, it's completely different from, say, politicians who have to be very careful who they date.

Personally, I like to know how old someone is before I have sex with them. Call it paranoid, I call it prudent.

Also I'm not trampy, so I like to know who I'm having sex with, anyways.

So. Scenario: A teacher, who is aware of how the law applies to teachers and public sentiment about them, picks up a date and doesn't bother to inquire as to his or her age before sleeping with him or her, or else knows the date's age and sleeps with him or her despite the teacher's awareness of the law: and I'm supposed to have sympathy for this person?

Or, you know, don't be a teacher. Crazy, isn't it?

And you know, it's completely different from, say, politicians who have to be very careful who they date.

Personally, I like to know how old someone is before I have sex with them. Call it paranoid, I call it prudent.

Also I'm not trampy, so I like to know who I'm having sex with, anyways.

So. Scenario: A teacher, who is aware of how the law applies to teachers and public sentiment about them, picks up a date and doesn't bother to inquire as to his or her age before sleeping with him or her, or else knows the date's age and sleeps with him or her despite the teacher's awareness of the law: and I'm supposed to have sympathy for this person?

What does age have to do with it? A fifteen year old in my country doesn't necessarily attend school, it's still illegal to sleep with them. A 20 year old can still be attending school - guess what: It's only a teacher who gets called a sex offender if they sleep with the adult. Why?

But the issue is age of consent. If the individual is clearly above the age of consent, as my boyfriend was (he was 19) and as the partners of my friends were, why should those relationships become null and void?

Why should a teacher not be able to conduct a relationship with a 17 or 18 year old student above the age of consent who is attending another school?

What does age have to do with it?

Well, you asked, so you tell me...
In other words, teachers should be asking for proof of age and employment before dating anyone.

Not to mention that if someone is 20, more than likely they are not a student, and if they are, they are probably legally emancipated from their parents and so lawsuits are less likely to be raised.

A fifteen year old in my country doesn't necessarily attend school, it's still illegal to sleep with them. A 20 year old can still be attending school - guess what: It's only a teacher who gets called a sex offender if they sleep with the adult. Why?

Because they should know better?

But the issue is age of consent. If the individual is clearly above the age of consent, as my boyfriend was (he was 19) and as the partners of my friends were, why should those relationships become null and void?

Professionalism?

Why should a teacher not be able to conduct a relationship with a 17 or 18 year old student above the age of consent who is attending another school?

Professionalism dictates that they know better?

Well, you asked, so you tell me...


Not to mention that if someone is 20, more than likely they are not a student, and if they are, they are probably legally emancipated from their parents and so lawsuits are less likely to be raised.

Tell that to the many, many 20 year olds I taught.

Because they should know better?

Know better why? I start a relationship with a 19 year old, and all of a sudden he decides to go back to school. So I have to dump him because while he is not attending school, I'm not a sex offender but because he enrols, suddenly I am?

Professionalism dictates that they know better?

So as I said, you are advocating that anyone who at any point in their lives is considering maybe becoming a teacher should not date anyone who could potentially possibly maybe be one of their students. Which limits the pool of potential dates quite significantly when you consider things like adult education programs where adult learners attend school with younger students.

Personally, I like to know how old someone is before I have sex with them. Call it paranoid, I call it prudent.

What do you do, check their ID and hope it isn't fake?

Tell that to the many, many 20 year olds I taught.

I have met very few 20 year olds in school. Can't speak for anyone else, though.

Know better why? I start a relationship with a 19 year old, and all of a sudden he decides to go back to school. So I have to dump him because while he is not attending school, I'm not a sex offender but because he enrols, suddenly I am?

Why are you yelling at me? I'm not the one who dated him.

Think of it this way: If he were moving far away, would you dump him? If he got a sex-change, would you dump him? If he found someone he was more attracted to would you dump him? There are many things someone might do that would necessitate an end to the relationship that is the result of a legal, personal choice on their part that is incompatible with a relationship with them. Dating sucks sometimes. Life isn't fair. Relationships are difficult and problematic. Welcome to reality.

So as I said, you are advocating that anyone who at any point in their lives is considering maybe becoming a teacher should not date anyone who could potentially possibly maybe be one of their students. Which limits the pool of potential dates quite significantly when you consider things like adult education programs where adult learners attend school with younger students.

There is a clear, obvious difference between a middle-aged adult who is returning to school and a young, late-graduate adult who has not yet left school. Appeal to ridicule does not logically follow.

What do you do, check their ID and hope it isn't fake?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but several court cases in various countries have established precedent that if you asked and they lied, you're not legally liable, since you were, to the best of your ability, trying to avoid any crime.

For example: if you pick up a girl in a bar, it's natural to assume that she is over the age of 18, since she's in a bar. On the other hand, trying to claim you didn't know any better after dating someone for a while is a stretch.

Again, Appeal to Ridicule does not logically follow.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but several court cases in various countries have established precedent that if you asked and they lied, you're not legally liable, since you were, to the best of your ability, trying to avoid any crime.

For example: if you pick up a girl in a bar, it's natural to assume that she is over the age of 18, since she's in a bar. On the other hand, trying to claim you didn't know any better after dating someone for a while is a stretch.

Again, Appeal to Ridicule does not logically follow.

I don't know about "several court cases in various countries" but this isn't the law in the U.S.

I don't know about "several court cases in various countries" but this isn't the law in the U.S.

Which is why the US has that whole "jury of your peers" thing.

I have met very few 20 year olds in school. Can't speak for anyone else, though.

I taught a lot of boys and girls from different cultures who were around 19-20 when they were in their final year.



Why are you yelling at me? I'm not the one who dated him.

I'm not yelling. I am trying to ascertain your logic that it can be legal for me to have sex with my 19 year old boyfriend one day and the next I am a sex offender.

Think of it this way: If he were moving far away, would you dump him? If he got a sex-change, would you dump him? If he found someone he was more attracted to would you dump him? There are many things someone might do that would necessitate an end to the relationship that is the result of a legal, personal choice on their part that is incompatible with a relationship with them. Dating sucks sometimes. Life isn't fair. Relationships are difficult and problematic. Welcome to reality.

Wow, overly bitter much? Been hurt recently? None of that would cause me to be labeled a sex offender. Continuing to date him after he began attending school would. I simply seek to understand why you feel that this is appropriate?

There is a clear, obvious difference between a middle-aged adult who is returning to school and a young, late-graduate adult who has not yet left school. Appeal to ridicule does not logically follow.

Why? Why is there a difference? The potential for abuse of power is just as great, whether the student is 16 or 60.

I taught a lot of boys and girls from different cultures who were around 19-20 when they were in their final year.

So. If you really care about someone you can wait until they're out of school to develop your relationship. I won't be long.

I'm not yelling. I am trying to ascertain your logic that it can be legal for me to have sex with my 19 year old boyfriend one day and the next I am a sex offender.

You're a teacher, he's (hypothetically) as student. I reiterate my previous statement that consentual sex laws are, by definition, discriminatory against people below the age of consent, because if anyone below the age of consent has sex, someone is breaking the law, or else the law is unequally applied.

Wow, overly bitter much?

No, realistic. If you're that worried about a relationship that you think waiting a year or two for them to finish school will definitively end the relationship, than it's probably not worth maintaining.

Sometimes, but not all times - sometimes relationships don't work out for reasons beyond our control. If you cannot accept that fact then you are going to have a miserable love life, unless you are very lucky and get set for life early.

Been hurt recently?

Hurt, no. But she was psychotic. Stay away from girls named Michelle.

None of that would cause me to be labeled a sex offender. Continuing to date him after he began attending school would. I simply seek to understand why you feel that this is appropriate?

1) I never said it is appropriate. Once again again again again, I am pointing out the reasoning behind the opposition. Once again again again, my personal opinion is that I don't care whether it is or isn't, happens or doesn't, because it's not going to happen to me and you're an idiot if you let it happen to you.
2) The reasoning is: Teachers are held to a higher standard since they are responsible for teaching our children. If the teachers have questionable morals and we put those people in charge of our children, what does it say about our own morals? It is, of course, debatable that this standard is unreasonably high.
3) Given the circumstances, I imagine that if your boyfriend did go back to school, it's unlikely that a lawsuit would be raised. If it were, I imagine that the judge would not be unreasonable and would pardon you given the circumstances (since you've been dating him since before he went back to school, so your relationship is established as existing completely apart from the education system). If it went to trial, the jury would probably be understanding (which is the purpose of that whole jury of your peers thing). And if, IF the jury was full of heartless, judgmental individuals, they would probably still only mandate that you end the relationship and not label you a sex offender since your relationship existed previous to his going back to school. If not, that is a risk you have chosen, by your own accord, to take by choosing to become a teacher, choosing to date this individual, and choosing to continue the relationship after he goes back to school even though you know there is a risk involved.

Why? Why is there a difference? The potential for abuse of power is just as great, whether the student is 16 or 60.

When you go back to school at 60 the teacher isn't an authority figure anymore, they are a peer. If a 60-year-old can't hold his or her own in life then they shouldn't be going back to school. The one exception would be a mentally disabled person being taken care of, in which case I would not be surprised if a teacher was labeled a sex offender for developing a relationship with that person.

Wait, what? I don't see how that's possible, unless they're at the same school, and I don't know of many schools that teach grades K-12.

I attended such a school. Pre-K to 12, actually. :)

You're a teacher, he's (hypothetically) as student. I reiterate my previous statement that consentual sex laws are, by definition, discriminatory against people below the age of consent, because if anyone below the age of consent has sex, someone is breaking the law, or else the law is unequally applied.

No because they apply equally to all members of the community. Labeling a teacher a sex offender rather than just firing them is treating them differently.

No, realistic. If you're that worried about a relationship that you think waiting a year or two for them to finish school will definitively end the relationship, than it's probably not worth maintaining.

No I just don't see why the law applies differently to me than it does to a police officer, lawyer, doctor or other professional in a position of power.


1) I never said it is appropriate. Once again again again again, I am pointing out the reasoning behind the opposition. Once again again again, my personal opinion is that I don't care whether it is or isn't, happens or doesn't, because it's not going to happen to me and you're an idiot if you let it happen to you.
2) The reasoning is: Teachers are held to a higher standard since they are responsible for teaching our children. If the teachers have questionable morals and we put those people in charge of our children, what does it say about our own morals? It is, of course, debatable that this standard is unreasonably high.

And again and again and again, you have not satisfactorily explained why it is that teachers in particular, not police, not doctors, not lawyers, but teachers are held to this higher moral standard. You have also not explained satisfactorily to me why it demonstrates questionable morals for a teacher to date a student over the age of consent, who im many cases is legally able to drink, drive and is legally an adult, from another school.

3) Given the circumstances, I imagine that if your boyfriend did go back to school, it's unlikely that a lawsuit would be raised. If it were, I imagine that the judge would not be unreasonable and would pardon you given the circumstances (since you've been dating him since before he went back to school, so your relationship is established as existing completely apart from the education system). If it went to trial, the jury would probably be understanding (which is the purpose of that whole jury of your peers thing). And if, IF the jury was full of heartless, judgmental individuals, they would probably still only mandate that you end the relationship and not label you a sex offender since your relationship existed previous to his going back to school. If not, that is a risk you have chosen, by your own accord, to take by choosing to become a teacher, choosing to date this individual, and choosing to continue the relationship after he goes back to school even though you know there is a risk involved.

And yet you contradict your own reasoning below:

When you go back to school at 60 the teacher isn't an authority figure anymore, they are a peer. If a 60-year-old can't hold his or her own in life then they shouldn't be going back to school. The one exception would be a mentally disabled person being taken care of, in which case I would not be surprised if a teacher was labeled a sex offender for developing a relationship with that person.

As I said, my 19 year old boyfriend was considering returning to school. I.e he left at 15 and was working up north as a fisherman for 5 years and was considering returning to school. Why is this different to the 60 year old who returns to school to fulfil some lifelong dream?

How is the teacher not an authority figure in a classroom? In a school? Regardless of the age of the students, they are the ones with the knowledge, which the students are wanting to learn. The teacher sets the rules, the students obey. The teacher grades the assignments.

Except, if you read the article this thread is based on, this applies even if the student (who as has been repeatedly stated IS of legal age to be fucked by anyone else) goes to a school the teacher doesn't teach at.

That would change nothing. It remains that teachers are authority figures, and adults. Society lends them a greater degree of trust than it does others.

Just as I called for a most harsh sentence when Bobby Cutts, a Canton Police office, killed his girlfriend, I would so too for a teacher who screws with an underage kid.

That would change nothing. It remains that teachers are authority figures, and adults. Society lends them a greater degree of trust than it does others.

Just as I called for a most harsh sentence when Bobby Cutts, a Canton Police office, killed his girlfriend, I would so too for a teacher who screws with an underage kid.

I share your outrage, but you aren't responding to the question at hand.

You seem to have overlooked where Redwulf specified --in bold -- that the "kid" in question is neither underage nor a student of the teacher. Let me repeat that: the "kid" is older than the age of consent (for example, 18) and is NOT a student of the teacher.

I think that the representative of the Union was being very reasonable and considerate; if a relationship develops between a teacher and a student it is unprofessional and unethical - the teacher will lose their job and credibility in the area anyway if discovered. As has been argued by many others in this thread, it seems entirely unfair to make them sign the sex offenders register also...

That would change nothing. It remains that teachers are authority figures, and adults. Society lends them a greater degree of trust than it does others.

Just as I called for a most harsh sentence when Bobby Cutts, a Canton Police office, killed his girlfriend, I would so too for a teacher who screws with an underage kid.

That;s nice. This does not however involve underage kids. It's about kids who are of the legal age of consent.

No because they apply equally to all members of the community. Labeling a teacher a sex offender rather than just firing them is treating them differently.

If someone who is 14 has sex with someone who is 14, does anyone go to jail? If not, why not? They both had sex with someone who is under the age of consent. So why don't they go to jail for it?

No I just don't see why the law applies differently to me than it does to a police officer, lawyer, doctor or other professional in a position of power.

Because being a police officer, lawyer, doctor, or other professional in a position of power is different from being a teacher who is constantly around children, or at yeast young adults. And if a policeman has an affair with someone below the age of consent I imagine the consequences would be similarly harsh.

And again and again and again, you have not satisfactorily explained why it is that teachers in particular, not police, not doctors, not lawyers, but teachers are held to this higher moral standard. You have also not explained satisfactorily to me why it demonstrates questionable morals for a teacher to date a student over the age of consent, who im many cases is legally able to drink, drive and is legally an adult, from another school.

Because police, doctors, and lawyers do not deal with youths on a regular basis.

And yet you contradict your own reasoning below:

As I said, my 19 year old boyfriend was considering returning to school. I.e he left at 15 and was working up north as a fisherman for 5 years and was considering returning to school. Why is this different to the 60 year old who returns to school to fulfil some lifelong dream?

The difference between 19 and 60 is 41.

How is the teacher not an authority figure in a classroom? In a school? Regardless of the age of the students, they are the ones with the knowledge, which the students are wanting to learn. The teacher sets the rules, the students obey. The teacher grades the assignments.

When you're 60 the teacher is not an authority figure, he or she is a peer.

Because being a police officer, lawyer, doctor, or other professional in a position of power is different from being a teacher who is constantly around children, or at yeast young adults. And if a policeman has an affair with someone below the age of consent I imagine the consequences would be similarly harsh.
And if a policeman had an affair with someone above the age of consent? I doubt people would care.



Because police, doctors, and lawyers do not deal with youths on a regular basis.
Police deal with criminals and their victims. Either could be youths, or both.
Ever heard of paediatrics?
And someone has to defend those criminal youths that the police deal with. Or defend the young victims.

If someone who is 14 has sex with someone who is 14, does anyone go to jail? If not, why not? They both had sex with someone who is under the age of consent. So why don't they go to jail for it?

Because being a police officer, lawyer, doctor, or other professional in a position of power is different from being a teacher who is constantly around children, or at yeast young adults. And if a policeman has an affair with someone below the age of consent I imagine the consequences would be similarly harsh.

Because police, doctors, and lawyers do not deal with youths on a regular basis.

The difference between 19 and 60 is 41.

When you're 60 the teacher is not an authority figure, he or she is a peer.

Rollin', rollin', rollin' keep those goalposts rollin'.

Have you figured out in your own mind whether the age of consent is a relevant point or not? 'Cuz you seem to ping-pong back and forth on that, even in a single post.

Rollin', rollin', rollin' keep those goalposts rollin'.

Have you figured out in your own mind whether the age of consent is a relevant point or not? 'Cuz you seem to ping-pong back and forth on that, even in a single post.

My point is that the age of consent is arbitrary, and by definition discriminatory (in a good way) against children below the age of consent.

Similarly, yes, harsher punishments for teachers would be arbitrary and discriminatory.

But it's already arbitrary and discriminatory, so using it as reasoning against harsher punishments for teachers is fallacious. There are plenty of other reasons to put forth against it, but "because it's arbitrary and discriminatory" is not a valid reason.

Because police, doctors, and lawyers do not deal with youths on a regular basis.



The difference between 19 and 60 is 41.



When you're 60 the teacher is not an authority figure, he or she is a peer.

You seem to be drawing arbitary lines, why is a teacher not a authority figure when you reach 60 but is when you are 19? The position they hold is still the same,

My point is that the age of consent is arbitrary, and by definition discriminatory (in a good way) against children below the age of consent.

Similarly, yes, harsher punishments for teachers would be arbitrary and discriminatory.

But it's already arbitrary and discriminatory, so using it as reasoning against harsher punishments for teachers is fallacious. There are plenty of other reasons to put forth against it, but "because it's arbitrary and discriminatory" is not a valid reason.

Speaking of fallacious reasoning .... "X is also arbitrary, but it is good" doesn't really answer "Y is bad because it is arbitrary and discriminatory." You are right that making distinctions between groups isn't always wrong, but you fail to recognize that such distinctions must be justified or they are wrong. The distinction between someone able to consent and someone who isn't is a justifiable distinction. You keep begging the question of whether the distinction between a teacher and other "authority figures" is justifiable when it comes to sex with someone that is over the age of consent and not subject to the authority of the teacher/"authority figure."

Regardless, my point wasn't about your "point" about arbitrariness, but rather that you seem to mix and match examples of sex with someone below the age of consent with examples of sex with someone above the age of consent -- usually in a deliberate effort to make the latter by teachers seem morally equivalent to the former by other authority figures.

Also, your premise that a teacher from another school is still an authority figure to a student that is, for example, 18, is pretty frickin' weak. What actual or apparent authority does such a teacher have over said student?