It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students
I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized.
The point is that there is a vast and extremely nuanced continuum of sexual interactions involving teachers and students, ranging from flirtation to mutual lust to harassment to predatory behavior. Painting all of these behaviors with the same brush sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth. Many teenagers are, biologically speaking, sexually mature. Pretending that this kind of thing won’t happen if we simply punish it severely enough is delusional. If anything, to return to Louis C.K., the indiscriminate criminalization of such situations may deter students struggling with sexual issues from seeking advice from a parent or counselor.
If religious leaders and heads of state can’t keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard? A more realistic approach would be to treat violations in a way that removes and rehabilitates the offender without traumatizing the victim. The intensity of criminal proceedings, with all the pressure they put on participants, the stigma, the community and media scrutiny, and the concurrent shame and guilt they generate, do the opposite of healing and protecting the victim. Laws related to statutory rape are in place to protect children, but the issue of underage sex, and certainly of sex between students and teachers, may be one in which the law of unintended consequences is causing so much damage that society needs to reassess.
Originally posted by rickymouse
can't see it at all. We trust that the teacher won't be taking advantage of our kids. The law should be stricter with teachers than with the general public.
Originally posted by Phoenix267
You cannot fix stupid. What we need to do is properly teach kids about sex. Not publish this bull and somehow feel like you're helping fix the problem.
miniatus
you have to obey the law, work to change the law legally by getting a majority to agree with you, or leave..
Originally posted by FortAnthem
miniatus
you have to obey the law, work to change the law legally by getting a majority to agree with you, or leave..
This is why articles like this are so dangerous; that's EXACTLY what she's trying to do. She's trying to convince enough people that teacher-student sex is OK so that people will vote to change the laws.
Sure, it seems crazy now and there are plenty of folks out there who will oppose this type of thinking with every ounce of their being but, what she's doing is planting a seed that the hopes will grow in time until people become more accepting of teachers banging their children and pedophilia in general.
She's floating a trial balloon to see which arguments strike a chord with the public.
Originally posted by kimish
Wow.
In the thread about the suicide a few days ago everyone was screaming that the committed suicide because of the rape.
So, if I understand this right, she was ok with the rape (intercourse) but the stress from the teacher getting in trouble is what made her upset?
The clinical significance criteria were revised to clarify that, for Pedophilia, Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, and Frotteurism, if the person has acted on these urges, or the urges or sexual fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty, then by definition there is clinical significance. For Sexual Sadism, if the person has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person, or the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty, then the clinical significance criterion is met. For the remaining Paraphilias, the clinical significance criterion is met if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Of course, to qualify for the specific diagnosis, the particular pattern of paraphilic arousal must also be present.(Emphasis added)
Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by miniatus
Change like this doesn't take place overnight. It took several decades for gays to win acceptance in society. The pedophiles are modeling their "movement" on the way gays gained acceptance and are working to change our attitudes by chipping away at the laws and social mores a tiny bit at a time.
In this article, she tries to use our sympathy for the victim to convince us that decriminalization is best. All rape victims face the same stress when they have to go to trial but, she plays on the young age of these victims and the "arbitrary" laws that made them into victims whether the consented or not. She is trying to convince us that, because the children are so young and emotionally fragile, we should abandon the idea of having them testify against their rapists and send the rapist to counseling instead.
Laws enacted as a knee jerk moralist action are as dangerous as any rapist/murderer. Just for a moment lets think what would happen if there were no laws regarding child sex. Just enforced guidelines.. Firstly there would be no compunction for the rapist, to murder the child to keep them quiet.?
As there is a great difference between mutual pubescent sex and pre pubescent sex. In Pre pubescent sex the child wouldn't have a clue what was going on, it would be a predatory, premeditated act on the part of the offender, and would be far better looked at as a psychiatric condition on the part of the perpetrator ,requiring therapy. As many Paedophiles have been abused themselves, and are stuck with some sort of post traumatic syndrome. With regards to Pubescent females its a different ballgame ,the age of mensturation has, been has been dropping since Victorian times, its to do with nutrition and weight. Everyone is different. If you tell a child that they cant have any sexual activity, (say at 12 years old) until they are 18 in the States and 16 in the UK. Or 14 in France. Then if that same child robs a store, then they can go to the lockup, if they knowingly have underage sex then by the same criterion they should be arrested?.. So if a teacher has sex with a student who happens to be 15, and that student knows the law, why cant they be arrested along with the teacher. I don't know the answer but one size fits all aint gonna work.
edit on 4-9-2013 by anonentity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kimish
Isn't pedophilia a sexual fascination, or whatever, with pre-pubescent children?
Sorry but being attracted to a 16 year with the body of a 26 year old isn't pedophilia, especially if the age isn't known. It's human nature.
16 year olds in this day and age are way more developed socially and physically than the 16 year olds of fifteen years ago.edit on 4-9-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by James1982
And technically, having sex under the influence of alcohol or other substances is rape too. As per the law that is.
So ladies and Gents, the next time you have a few smokes or a couple of glasses of wine, do not perform coitus, because by law it is rape.
Teachers should not have sex with students. I do agree with this.