Unethical Quote of the Week: Drew Curtis’ Fark

“Seduced by your teacher at 16 thereby robbing of your childhood, oh yeah that’s surely worth 10 million…”

Drew Curtis’ Fark, satirical news aggregation site, commenting on a mother’s 10 million dollar lawsuit against Brooklyn and the teacher who had repeated sex with the mother’s 16-year-old son, whom she was supposed to be tutoring.

Erin Sayer—teacher, child molester, sex fantasy. “How to GO kid! I’d hit that, for sure!”

Let me begin by saying that Fark is one of my favorite sites. It is consistently irreverent and funny, and its news links have inspired some of the most interesting exchanges on Ethics Alarms. Let me also say that I understand that the point of the site is to make snarky, often irreverent, sometimes obscene and intentionally outrageous tongue-in-cheek comments about news stories  trivial, major and odd, and that for the most part, it accomplishes its mission with wit and good humor.

This comment, however, is wrong, unethical, because whatever value it has as humor is outweighed by the harmful attitude it reinforces. Whether it is the  sentimental, , “Summer of 42” myth of the beautiful right-of passage of a teen-aged boy with the help of a loving, lovely, adult woman, or the macho “All right–I sure would have loved to have had a roll in the sack with MY hot high school teacher!” reaction of the locker room crowd, the idea that an adult teacher seducing and having sexual relations with a minor student is anything but sexual assault, rape, and a dastardly breach of trust, position and power does affirmative and continuing harm. The currency and resiliency  of this enabling attitude (read the comments to any online news story about a female teacher prosecuted for having sex with a student) emboldens sexual predators in the schools, reinforces an indefensible double standard ( a male teacher who has sex with a female student is an unequivocal villain, but a boy being raped by a female teacher is a lucky stiff) ) and worst of all, makes student victims more vulnerable.

The cultural assumption that a boy who is seduced by a teacher has been given some kind of gift is in the same category as the claim that women who are raped secretly “want it.” It is important that this theme be rejected, which means that websites like Fark shouldn’t reinforce it even in jest, because the jest does reinforce it.  Hitting communities, schools and teachers with tough jury verdicts is an essential part of eliminating this far too common crime in our schools. Ten million dollars in damages properly states how wrong and intolerable the conduct is, and like all forms of rape, it is nothing to laugh at.

________________________________________

Facts: Fark

Source, Graphic: Daily Mail

(Again, thanks to Jeff Field for catching a typo!)

61 thoughts on “Unethical Quote of the Week: Drew Curtis’ Fark

  1. I 100% agree with your call because it is equal. As for the disparity in how people evaluate these cases I understand it, maybe because I am a guy. Now obviously you can’t make a universal statement about every individual but I think the general idea is if this happened to a boy it wouldn’t effect or define him the rest of his life, where as if it was an adult male to a girl then it may. I don’t know if it is valid, I think there is something to it as I don’t think it would define me or fundamentally change me, but maybe I am wrong. I just think it’s the general notion. As for the jest enabling it, yes I think you are correct but also that is representative of a majority view.

    • Steven, while I share your agreement with Jack and your intuition (or theory) about “disparity of impact” between adult female-with-young-male versus adult-male-with-young-female impropriety, you might have just stepped on a land mine of sorts that has blown up before in this blog.

    • I think the perception that an adult female with a boy is more damaging than an adult male with a girl is based on antiquated ideas about women being innocents who neither want nor enjoy sex, and men being rapacious animals who must be held in check.

  2. Or do you think that the perception that an adult male with a girl is more damaging than an adult female with a boy is based on antiquated ideas about women being innocents who neither want nor enjoy sex, and men being rapacious animals who must be held in check?

    This does beg the question of where such antiquated ideas originated, and how.

    • Not in the least. It’s an interesting question in the same way that “How did we decide that women shouldn’t work” is an interesting question, but it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the comment that the ideas that women are innocents who neither want nor enjoy sex and that men are rapacious animals who must be held in check are antiquated

  3. If you (the author) are familiar with Fark then you should be able to more correctly interpret the headline. The point wasn’t that it’s ok when the student is male. The point is that 10 million dollars is an outrageous sum of money and the parent is using the public outrage over the potential trauma to the child to get rich. If the school district has to shell out that kind of money, how are they supposed to be able to afford good teachers? You know, the kind that can be trusted not to seduce their students.

    • Baloney. I’m VERY familiar with Fark, and Fark regularly makes snickering “I’d hit that” comments about female teachers who seduce students. It has embraced the myth that teen boys who get raped by hot female teachers are lucky stiffs, maybe in jest, and maybe because Drew believes that. This wasn’t the most blatant example, it was just the most recent, and I had vowed to flag the next one.

      Meanwhile, your comment, and Fark’s, are ignorant of the process. Insurance companies pay the damages in such trials. Plaintiffs, as matter of tactics, ask for the high end of damages—you don’t often get more than you ask for, “The Verdict” notwithstanding. And who says 10 million is an “outrageous” sum for a teacher raping a child? Or outrageous damages for a school that negligently recruits predators to oversee children?

  4. I love that you insist this was ” sexual assault, rape” etc. I think people like you do not fully understand and respect the gravity of those terms.

    Assault – violence accompanied by pain and often trauma. Real physical harm is done, and generally emotional pain too.

    Rape – Forcing someone into having sex, generally through physical force and threats of violence/death if they do not comply.

    These are absolutely horrible things that no one should ever have to endure ever.

    Sex between people who want to have it is a beautiful thing. Just who among us (rape victims aside) is “traumatized” by the sex we had as teenagers? I would dare to venture the answer is NO ONE.

    Teachers should absolutely not be having sex with their students though – I don’t care so much on the age difference and I don’t think it usually qualifies as abuse of authority(unless of course the teacher threatened the student into having sex or even promised better grades).

    The problem I have is that this is totally unprofessional. School are a place of learning not farking. Students should see their teachers as people there to teach and guide them. They should not look to the teacher for their next blow job. Time at school should be focused on bettering yourself. The students should look to other students for their “extracurricular activities.”

    But your post makes a false equivalence between a teacher dropping her blouse(with the student reciprocating freely), and someone being held down on the floor with a knife to their throat – being forcefully penetrated and fearing for their very life. Its not the same – not even close. I think you demean rape victims when you group this student in with them.

    Despite believing you have the best of intentions – in my opinion what you are saying is harmful. When you start defining rape is such loose terms, you ultimately lessen the impact of that word. There is an old phrase “muddying the water” that I think fits rather nicely. There are lots of people who do not take the epidemic of rape seriously – and I consider people like you as part of the reason why.

    You’re not helping. Please, just stop.

    • That’s pretty rich, Chris. You don’t comprehend the concepts of abuse of power, invalid consent, coercion by authority, implied threats and inequality of status, but you say I’m confusing the issues.

      How about a father “persuading” an underage daughter to have sex with him, Chris? Is that sufficiently abusive to stop it from being a beautiful thing? A child, legally and cognitively, is presumed to be incapable of resisting an authority figure’s sexual overtures? How about a priest? Not abuse, assault or rape as long as the horny cleric patter is sufficient to get the kid to drop his knickers? The use of age and authority is the equivalent of physical force, which is why it IS rape. If you did take rape as seriously as your muddled comment purports to, you would understand that. Physical rape is for brutes. The casting couch, quid pro quo sexual harassment, teacher abuse—these are the clever, persuasive ones, who use other means. Jerry Sandusky didn’t think what he was doing was rape either.

      • Understand that those things you mentioned ARE obviously bad things – no one is arguing otherwise(checks for straw men standing behind me). I understand those issues just fine.

        “The use of age and authority is the equivalent of physical force.” No it isn’t. The use of authority to coerce sex is not acceptable obviously. I think that having a knife to your throat or a gun in your mouth is far more damaging than being threatened with a “D” instead of the “B” you deserve. Tell me what would keep you up an night trembling.

        Suppose you where being threatened by those things – but not for sex. Maybe for money. Give me your money or I use my authority to lower your grade. See its clearly not acceptable, but its clearly not the same as a crack addict having a gun to your back.

        Extortion is bad, but its not rape. Bribing for sexual favors is not much better, but not rape either. See there are bad things, and there are worse things. Some things should not be grouped together no matter how much simpler it allows your cognitive processes to be. Rape is a VERY horrible thing.

        Let me ask you then – A girl loves a boy and the boy says he will break up with her if she will not have sex. So that is coercion. The girl is afraid to loose the boy so she agrees to have sex that she does not really want. Is this rape?

        Coerced sex is not the same thing as rape. Still the use of authority is wholly unacceptable for the use in coercion.

        So you go on crazy tangents about fathers/daughters (incest is a different matter obviously). Where the hell do you get from the topic to this? Would you like to argue global warming too? Or perhaps the merits of vegetarianism? How about staying a little more on topic.

        “A child, legally and cognitively, is presumed to be incapable of resisting an authority figure’s sexual overtures?” That presumption is not based in reality.

        1. The subject was 16. I don’t know what black/white world you live in – but calling that subject cannot accurately be called child nor adult. Adolescent is the term you are looking for, and point of fact he was @16 far closer to adult than child. Cognitive ability to choose does not suddenly turn on overnight. Do you even remember yourself @ 16? I do. While I made plenty of dumb choices – as teens do – I was fully capable of making choices as much then as when I was 26. At 26 I had more experience in life(in part from the bad choices I had made) and thus made better choices.

        2. At that age(and earlier) I was fully capable of resisting an authority figures overtures. If there is anything a teenager is good for – its resisting/rebelling against authority. What sort of life did you lead? In fact I got a pretty strong hint from an “authority figure” at my high school(NOT a teacher) that I had that option. It was not very difficult to decline. Honestly I just felt sorry for her.

        “Physical rape is for brutes.” Physical rape is very real and very common – million of women every year are subjected to it. I think you should not be so quick to dismiss it. Objectively, it is clearly the most horrific kind of rape. I think you need to talk to a woman who has actually experienced this, and ask her if the “REAL VICTIMS” are those who got passed over for a raise because she would not sleep with the boss. Ask her if she would not quickly trade that experience for her own. Again I am not implying that both examples are not completely wrong, but they are not “equivalent” by any long shot of the imagination.

        I also forgot to mention women in many countries who have no rights. Women who get beaten into submission by their husbands(who they are not free to divorce). That too, is physical/forcible rape. The real statistics are staggering and hard to compile. So many women are afraid to report this for fear of their lives. Physical/forcible rape is the largest problem worldwide that women face. This problem deserves your respect, not your snark.

        • If Chris Hansen from Dateline was anything like this Chris Hanson, I think a few guys could have talked their way out that house.

        • Coerced sex is not the same thing as rape. Still the use of authority is wholly unacceptable for the use in coercion.

          And grabbing a woman’s boobs is not sexually assualt. You’re just making shit up and denying common language.

          I also forgot to mention women in many countries who have no rights. Women who get beaten into submission by their husbands(who they are not free to divorce). That too, is physical/forcible rape. The real statistics are staggering and hard to compile. So many women are afraid to report this for fear of their lives. Physical/forcible rape is the largest problem worldwide that women face. This problem deserves your respect, not your snark.

          There was no snark on that problem. Just because X is worse than Y does not mean that Y isn’t bad or that someone who complains that another person is not taking Y seriously thinks that X isn’t bad. Your logic is astoundingly bad.

          • Am I wearing a straw man costume today and no one told me?

            You are arguing solely against things I never said. 100% made up.

            Your reading and/or comprehension skills are astoundingly bad.

            Go back – reread. Call me in the morning.

      • It’s not just children that are at the lower end of power imbalances. Arresting officer arrestee is a valid comparison to teacher student.

    • I love that you insist this was ” sexual assault, rape” etc. I think people like you do not fully understand and respect the gravity of those terms.

      Assault – violence accompanied by pain and often trauma. Real physical harm is done, and generally emotional pain too.

      Rape – Forcing someone into having sex, generally through physical force and threats of violence/death if they do not comply.

      These are absolutely horrible things that no one should ever have to endure ever.

      Sex between people who want to have it is a beautiful thing. Just who among us (rape victims aside) is “traumatized” by the sex we had as teenagers? I would dare to venture the answer is NO ONE.

      Words mean things, which is why I have a problem with the term statutory rape.

      “Unlawful carnal knowledge” and “wrongful sexual conduct with a minor” are more appropriate terms; they still send the message that such conduct is shunned by society, without equating it to rape.

        • The problem is that in some jurisidictions, if a 15-year-old boy has sex with with 15-year-old girlfriend, it is rape. See Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 at 476 (1981) (plurality) (noting that the petitioner, challenging a prosecution for statutory rape, was also under the age of consent) See also Michael M., 25 Ca.3d 608 at 621n.4 (1979) (Mosk, J., dissenting) (noting that the appellant and the complaining witness were “virtually the same age”)

            • You don’t get it – YOU are attempting to use the law as a moral yardstick. The law is not very good for that purpose.

              “It’s rape. The law says its rape, and it is rape.” and somehow you don’t get what he is saying. Or maybe you do but pretend not to get it so you don’t have to admit the possibility that you may be mistaken… even if just a little bit.

              But why do you think that law is stupid? I agree it is, but why do you? With your logic – that those under 18 CANNOT CONSENT and therefore having sex with them is in all cases rape – two teenagers having sex are BOTH RAPISTS.

              That law may be insane, but at least it is logically consistent with your thinking. So I wonder how you think that is different? There can be no consent from either party, so why are both those teenagers in this scenario not rapists? You surly are not gonna tell us that two wrongs make a right. now are you?

              Why don’t you just admit that the legal requirements for consent are just a tad insane? They are completely out of touch with reality.

              The purpose of such laws in the first place is to “protect the children.” As they say – the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. Laws like that – which criminalize teenagers who have CONSENSUAL(just admit it) sex with each other and forced them onto sex offender registries FOR LIFE – do not serve the best interests of those teenagers.

              I’ll tell you this – I had sex as a teenager and some of the women I was with where older than 18. One was 30(looked younger). Let me make this perfectly clear as day – I WAS NEVER RAPED.

              You’d have to be absolutely insane to tell me I’m a rape victim.

              • And just to be clear – while you argue “I’m right because the law says ‘X'”

                I’m arguing that the laws are far less than optimal and need to be changed/improved upon.

                • I don’t disagree with that last statement at all, though if you think authority figures entrusted with students shouldn’t face criminal charges and heavy civil penalties for using their classes or teams as a personal bordello, I disagree a lot. There is substantial data that finds that young teens introduced to sex by teachers, pastors and others do suffer long-term psychological consequences in many cases. The teacher involved, of course, can’t know whether her particular mark will, and obviously doesn’t care. The conduct is using another human being for personal goals—an absolute ethics violation to Kant, a Golden Rule breach, and indefensible on utilitarian grounds. So you make it very, very expensive for schools that don’t screen their teachers effectively.

                  • I don’t think teachers should be allowed to have sex with their students… period. I thought my earlier arguments made that clear.

                    I don’t consider it rape – and I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one – but I still do consider it completely wrong all the same. She should have absolutely known better. She should be punished accordingly.

                    I do think the family is just being greedy in this case. Its one thing to say she should be punished, and another to say they are entitled to more money that that student and his family would ever make in their entire lives over this.

                    Lets say I’d feel better if that money where to go to a charity to help rape victims rather than going directly to them (aside from the costs of any counseling that would be needed). $10 million dollars – ridiculous.

                    Then you should consider the impact that that $10 million hole would cause to the educations of all the other students. That should certainly be weighed against them.

                    And you have to ask if the school actually condoned it. That is very highly unlikely.

                    • But to further clarify – I’m referring to this case. There would obviously be cases where teachers have indeed raped students, and I don’t mean to imply otherwise.

                      I believe that NO means NO. I just do not feel to compelled to believe that “HELL YES” means NO.

                      That to me is a key factor in deciding if something is rape or not.

                    • Chris, there are two problems with this analysis, both of which feed into the Fark fallacy. “Yes” when it is in response to an authority figure one admires, fears, or otherwise has been taught to obey, doesn’t mean “yes.” That is why consent is deemed impossible by the law, and why consent isn’t a defense to rape where there is evidence of coercion—and a teacher suggesting sex is coercion. Your “Hell yes” defense is essentially identical to the “She wanted it, she enjoyed it” defense of standard rape by physical force.

                      But the worst aspect of the analysis is that a victim’s reactions to being raped are irrelevant to the crime, just as the fact that a bank can afford to lose a thousand bucks doesn’t make it better to steal from a bank than a pet store, and just because the person you mug in the street is a masochist and enjoys the beating won’t lessen the charge. The crime is based on the act, not the victim’s presumed or after-the-fact claims of how he or she reacted to the crime. The perpetrator is just as guilty if he or she uses authority illicitly to persuade a minor to have sex who enjoys it as she is if the perpetrator doesn’t—or else you end up arguing that whether we object to the act depends on how good the teacher is in bed. It’s consequentialism. Don’t you see that?

                    • Liability has nothing to do with condoning. School’s are liable when those they hire abuse the trust of parents and harm the children. It’s the school’s employee. If a carpenter I let in my house for my kitchen remodelling rapes my wife, the contractors may well be liable for hiring the guy, especially if the guy had a record. I leave my door open because the company led me to trust them. Similarly, the school assures parents that the kids are safe with the teachers they hire, and are not going to be given training as lap-dancers or boy-toys no matter how much they “enjoy it.” They are responsible. Condoning it isn’t the point.

                    • Do you know how tort law works? the $10 million is quite possibly just determined by the statutes.

                      Also, it doesn’t matter at all what else would be done with the money. If it did, then a charity that contributes greatly to the welfare of others would have cart blanche to behave improperly. A rich philanthropist shouldn’t be punished less for a rape than a rich miser. The victim of the rich philanthropist shouldn’t receive less than the victim of a rich miser.

              • You don’t get it – YOU are attempting to use the law as a moral yardstick. The law is not very good for that purpose.

                “It’s rape. The law says its rape, and it is rape.” and somehow you don’t get what he is saying. Or maybe you do but pretend not to get it so you don’t have to admit the possibility that you may be mistaken… even if just a little bit.

                I think that was just additional fuel to the fire. Jack has expounded on that the real reason it’s rape is because of the power imbalance.

                But why do you think that law is stupid? I agree it is, but why do you? With your logic – that those under 18 CANNOT CONSENT and therefore having sex with them is in all cases rape – two teenagers having sex are BOTH RAPISTS.

                That law may be insane, but at least it is logically consistent with your thinking. So I wonder how you think that is different? There can be no consent from either party, so why are both those teenagers in this scenario not rapists? You surly are not gonna tell us that two wrongs make a right. now are you?

                I don’t see that logic in Jack’s argument. There no power imbalance between two 15 year olds. It’s like you’re intentionaly misrepresenting Jack’s statements.

                The purpose of such laws in the first place is to “protect the children.” As they say – the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. Laws like that – which criminalize teenagers who have CONSENSUAL(just admit it) sex with each other and forced them onto sex offender registries FOR LIFE – do not serve the best interests of those teenagers.

                This isn’t against anything that Jack has said here.

                I’ll tell you this – I had sex as a teenager and some of the women I was with where older than 18. One was 30(looked younger). Let me make this perfectly clear as day – I WAS NEVER RAPED.

                You’d have to be absolutely insane to tell me I’m a rape victim.

                And were they in positions of authority over you? If not, then why would Jack be calling it rape?

        • Also cover phrases. Rape is a bigger taboo, and since there is no situation where it is appropriate for an adult in authority to seek sex from a minor, the best deterrent is to stop playing word games.

          • Accurate categorization is not playing word games. There is no value or purpose in your over-simplification of all matters.

            Punching someone with your fist and stabbing someone with a knife are both acts of violence – but they are not the same thing and most certainly not equal. The difference between assault and assault with a deadly weapon is read – not a “word game.”

            I’m probably wasting my time. I know this.

            • Sexual relations with someone without valid consent is the definition of rape. Lesser charges exist for plea bargaining and a recognition that there are degrees of rape. Not calling it rape, unfortunately, also allows rationalizers to pretend that it isn’t rape, just a technicality. Was there a point when Elizabeth Smart, forcibly married to her kidnapper and under his complete control, was not being raped? Does calling it something else that sounds less heinous change the act?

            • That’s actually a good example of a word game. Anything can be considered a deadly weapon. If I’m holding a pencil and punch someone, it can become assault with a deadly weapon, even though there’s no additional force involved.

  5. We can’t go splitting hairs when it comes to rape. Some may say “legitimate” rape, others may call rape babies “gifts from God”, while others may wish that they could have had the opportunity to have legal, consensual intercourse with a rapist during her pre-rapist days. Some have even gone so far as to blaspheme the Sacred Virgin claiming that God raped her.

    But rape is rape and, no matter how one speaks of rape, rape is really what the focus should be. Even animals should never be raped, which is why it would be a serious offense to take light to an animal rapist raping an animal that does not want to be raped. There is nothing funny about rape; and the more people learn to hate rape the less they will be tolerant of rape humor, which only serves to enable therapists.

    • Some have even gone so far as to blaspheme the Sacred Virgin claiming that God raped her.

      This was the Onion. It was a joke to show how ridiculous Mourdock is. It’s not at all what you suggested. Also, the capitalization of “Sacred Virgin” is just stupid.

  6. Given that this “child’s” life between the ages of 13 and 16 likely revolved around “see boobs, touch boobs, maybe have sex, please PLEASE GOD, let me have sex!”, I have a hard time seeing him as a victim.

    True, the teacher was in the wrong to engage in sex acts with a student under her care, and she should pay the price for that. However, I remember being a 16yr old boy in high school. I remember my 16yr old male friends in high school. We were fixated on the idea of “getting some”. We would joke about it, talk about it, describe elaborate scenarios in which the objects of our individual affections would allow us access to their bodies. We would brag about the slightest pseudo-sexual interaction with a girl. We would make up stuff to brag about, so as to look cool among our peers. It’s what teen boys do. It’s what they’ve always done. “OOK! THAG TOUCH BOOBIE OF POOKA LAST NIGHT AT COOKFIRE! THAG AWESOMER NOW!”

    Picture this: A smoking hot teacher tutoring you in close proximity, probably side by side on the sofa, or at the table, legs touching, shoulders touching, heads down over the books. Your hormones are raging, the slightest movement triggers instant bodily reaction, every breath fills your nostrils with her scent. One day, she offers you what your body and hind-brain have been lusting after since the first time you saw her. Who among us males, at 16, in this situation, would have the self-control to say “No, thank you. We should get back to studying geography. But please, sit on the other side of the table…”? I would have shed my clothes so fast it would make a circus quick-change artist green with envy.

    So, no. I do not believe this teacher raped this young man. I believe she made a terribly stupid decision, acted on it, and should pay the price. However, let’s not, even for a second, imagine that this boy did not enjoy EVERY SECOND OF EVERY ENCOUNTER. He is not a victim, he is not traumatized, he is not scarred for life. His parents are just as guilty as the teacher, except they are guilty of bullying their son into saying what they want in order to facilitate this frivolous and ridiculous lawsuit.

    As for the whole “male teacher w/female student” vs “female teacher w/male student” debate, I agree that there is a bit of a double standard there, but the outrage seems to be leveling out, in that both female and male teachers are starting to be vilified near equally, as it should be. It’s the age-old double standard stemming from when girls were taught that sex is bad, dirty, icky. It’s something that you should only do once you get married, and then only out of duty, never out of enjoyment. Newsflash: girls have always been just as interested in sex as boys. They were taught to repress those urges, because “good girls don’t like that.” and to be a “bad girl” was a stigma to be avoided at all costs, even if it meant being labeled a prude. This attitude has been changing for decades, but we’re still not to the point where we society will drop the attitude of “if a guy fools around with 50 girls, he’s a hero, but if a girl fools around with 50 boys, she’s a slut”. We need to end this hypocrisy.

    TLDR version: Teenage boys are walking hard-ons, and when she offered, he jumped on it. (pun intended). He’s not a victim, and the parents certainly don’t deserve $10M.

    CSB Time: I dated a teacher in high school. I actually did an extra year of high school to get some extra credits, courses that I had wanted to take but passed up in favor of more practical ones, while saving for college. I was 18, she was fresh out of teachers’ college, 24. We met while she was coaching the choral group, I was helping by playing piano for solos and rehearsals. We hit it off, and started seeing each other outside of school, we’d have lunch at school together, etc. Nothing inappropriate/sexual ever happened on school property or choral group performance trips. These days, she would be fired and likely charged with some crime. As it was, 24 years ago, when we were found out, we were summoned to the principal’s office and told to restrict our contact to out of school. Sadly, we split up (quite amicably) about 6 months later when she accepted a teaching position in another province.

    • So “see boobs, touch boobs, maybe have sex, please PLEASE GOD, let me have sex!” sounds to you like a rational, reasoning, mature adult adequately prepared to resist a teacher’s coercive seductions? Good to know. But sad, and wrong.

      • Never said it was rational, reasoning or mature. I said it was how the teen male mind functions. Obviously, the young man under discussion was not adequately prepared. I maintain that doesn’t necessarily make him a victim. A willing participant in a poorly-thought-out affair would be a more accurate statement, in my opinion.

        Thank you, however, for fixating on only the opening thought of my post, and completely ignoring the parts where I state, unequivocally, that the teacher was completely in the wrong to initiate the encounters. Now that you’ve made me aware of how your blog rolls, I will have no further need to follow it.

          • Well his argument seems to be centered around the state of mind/desires of the teenage male and how that shows this kid is no “victim.”

            He never claimed maturity. He is arguing (and I will grant you it is pure conjecture) that this kid WANTED and ENJOYED everything that happened to him. Therefore he is not a rape victim.

            Let me make this very clear to you – rape victims do not enjoy their rape. I think that if anyone implied otherwise, it would be highly offensive to actual rape victims.

            • If you can’t resist you can’t consent. Pretty simple.

              Let me make this very clear to you – rape victims do not enjoy their rape. I think that if anyone implied otherwise, it would be highly offensive to actual rape victims.

              You realize how inane your argument is, right? You’re making the “She had an orgasm, therefore it wasn’t rape” argument.

              There are things that I’ve been forced to do that I ended up enjoying to some degree. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t forced to do them. We know the body reacts to stimuli despite what we may want. The mind is affected the same way.

        • If it was not rational, reasoning or mature, then there was no consent that is recognized by the law, or that should be. I focused on that because your opening statement invalidated the rest. If there’s no consent, it’s coercion, get it? Coerced sex is rape. People who are raped are called victims. The fact that you acknowledged that a teacher entrusted with the education of children is being unprofessional to screw them is better than nothing, but you are using your acceptance of the obvious to justify your rationalizing away a crime. If that’s how YOU roll, good riddance.

    • Your logic doesn’t work. The male and female teachers should be equally vilified, but this boy was not a victim. Girls abused by male teachers must also not be victims.

      • If they are willing participants, then no, they are not.

        Obviously, my debate/discussion skills are far inferior to anybody on this blog, so I’ll just stop replying only to have my posts twisted and reshaped.

        Good day.

        • Hey–does anyone have a theory how “Good day” became the standard sign-off for commenters who get their clock cleaned making untenable arguments here and exit with their metaphorical tails between their legs?

          • No he is absolutely right. You do your best to argue against what you wish was said, not what was said. You have cleaned no clocks.

            There is a very clear difference between trying to argue with someone actually willing to debate on the point you make, and trying to argue with someone who has no interest in considering any viewpoint even slightly beyond his/her own.

            Intentionally mis-characterizing what someone says so you can argue against things they never said to gain easy points and call yourself the victor is not winning an argument. I’m thinking you can’t defeat anyone in an argument who is not made of straw.

            Arguing with a brick wall is a waste of time, but that does not necessarily mean you lost. It means there was never a chance in the first place.

            • I’m amused by your tactic of blathering on about the process of arguing without actually making a valid argument, or even trying to. Commenters persuade me and others here all the time, virtually every day. It does require that they know what they are talking about, however, and actually have points to make, rather than misconceptions and rationalizations.

              • Just to eliminate confusion, The Rob’s argument was incoherent. His anecdote about dating a teacher when he was 18 is irrelevant, though he still doesn’t understand that situation either: it’s still an abuse of power and a conflict of interest by the teacher; it is unethical. There is no crime to be charged. His argument that the fact that teens are “walking hard ons” doesn’t elucidate the issue at all: OK, they are easy to deceive and exploit. That is the REASON their consent isn’t valid. A long comment that doesn’t make anything approaching a persuasive argument.

        • You can’t have a willing participant in this situation.

          I’m entertained that you’re leaving because you don’t like that people are pointing out holes in your logic. Rather than deal with the problems, you claim you just aren’t skilled at talking about it. Cop out.

      • Girls abused by male teachers must also not be victims.
        There is a difference between a male teacher forcing himself on a female student and a male teacher having consensual sex with a female student.

        Both are wrong, but the former clearly causes greater trauma.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.