Wichita teacher convicted of sexing student, fighting for others' rights to sleep with students

[proud2BlibKansan]

Just what teachers need - not.

Finally, someone is sticking up for teachers' rights -- to sleep with their students. A Wichita choir instructor convicted Thursday of having unlawful sex with a student is trying to play martyr for the cause, according to the Wichita Eagle.

Charles Edwards, 30, was teaching at Wichita Northwest High School when he met an 18-year-old female student with whom he later had sex. Now his attorney, Steve Mank, is saying Edwards agreed to the conviction so he could appeal the Kansas law that makes it illegal for teachers to sleep with their students, regardless of age.

Mank told the Eagle that he'll argue the law is unconstitutional when it involves consensual sex with an adult student. Either way, it violates trust and opens the school to a shitload of liability. And parents probably can't wait to rally around Edwards and support his cause.

Edwards' sentencing is scheduled for May 17. Guidelines allow a range, from probation to 17 months in prison.

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/03/charles_edwards_sex_students.php

[SheilaT]

1. What he did wasn't totally ethical,

but since the student was over 18, I'm not sure how this is any different from any other case where a thirty-year old has sex with an eighteen-year old.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. It's against the law in Kansas

because she was his student.

And I think that law is a good idea, really.

[derby378]

4. Besides, if they were REALLY in love...

...and I'm completely open to falling in love with older or younger folks, just look at me and Ginny...the teacher surely could have waited just a little longer for his pupil to graduate and thus no longer be his pupil, but completely legal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Exactly

This guy's a slime. I hope he loses his appeal.

[apocalypsehow]

5. Okay, but the problem with the law is it creates a "class" of persons who do not have equal

protection under the law.

I agree he should be fired and face civil penalties for violating his contract. And certainly what he did was unethical.

But had he not been a teacher, then his sexual liason with this consenting adult would have been considered a legal act.

It's even worse than that: it creates a "class" of persons on both ends of the encounter, because had the woman - emphasis again: grown, adult, woman - not been a student, but he was still a teacher, then the act once again becomes a legal one.

When the law starts treating different classes of people differently for doing essentially the same things, I get very concerned. We've been down this road before, and it wasn't pretty.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. As a teacher, I say we have a special obligation to protect our students

I don't see that as a special class at all. It's a teacher's duty. And this guy violated that duty.

[apocalypsehow]

14. And a remedy is available in the form of termination of employment and civil fines for breach of

contract.

However, the equal protection clause draws a very clear line where criminal penalties attach to the offender. Simply stating the equivalent of "it's for the children" does not impress me - especially since the "victim" was an adult who consented.

And the fact that you are a teacher adds not a bit of weight to the credibility of your position, anymore than my profession adds to mine. It's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority rooted in Credentialism. It don't work here, with me, FYI.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. We'll have to agree to disagree

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of HIGH SCHOOL teachers having sex with their students. I don't care if they are technically adults. It's morally repulsive to me.

[apocalypsehow]

18. Okay, that's cool. I can see the other side of the argument, too, and, trust me, I have no real

sympathy for this guy - I think he's a creep.

Thanks for the discussion. :thumbsup:

[catenary]

19. I hate to think what you think of 2 people of the same sex having...er, sex.

:eyes:

[Dappleganger]

25. How is that relevant to this situation?

Now you're just trying to stir up shit.

[catenary]

40. I object to the hysteria of that post...clutching pearls over ADULTS having sex.

It's the same sort of hypocritical bullshit.

[Hannah Bell]

84. your "pearl-clutching" personal attack is bullshit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. If they are consenting adults, and not in a teacher-student relationship, why should I care?

Now please explain what your question has to do with this topic.

[catenary]

42. I do not consider a "teacher-student" relationship to be anything special.

People are people but I guess there will always be hypocritical Puritans who are deathly afraid someone else is having fun. The world is dismal enough without that kind of 'do as I say not what I do' shit.

[LanternWaste]

50. A lot of people don't consider...

A lot of people don't consider a prison-guard/prisoner relationship to be anything special either, or an 18 year old daughter/father relationship to be special too... when they are all merely "adults having fun" (the only qualifier present in your standard)

Lots of "puritans" out there, I imagine...

[catenary]

59. I've never met an 18 year old who had not learned the word "no".

:shrug:

[LanternWaste]

60. meet more people....?

Broaden your horizons and meet more people....? :shrug:

[catenary]

63. Thanks but I'm not interested in being friends with idiots

or republicans.
;-)

[LanternWaste]

65. I doubt it's merely republican or idiots...

I doubt it's merely republican or idiots who think that prison guards having sex with prisoners or engaging in incest is an a-ok thing. But if you feel better validated making that posit, by all means...


On Edit: I imagine you will be admonishing the Puritans and Prudes on this thread also... :shrug:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x760313

[catenary]

67. That does not even merit a response.

Don't bother answering.

[LanternWaste]

75. Well, it's the corner you backed yourself into...

Well, it's the corner you backed yourself into... :shrug:

(Sorry for answering... bless your little heart)

[wickerwoman]

51. But it's still a question for the employer, not the judicial system.

He should be fired if he was sleeping with a student while she was in his class. He should lose his teaching license. Those are proportional responses.

But he hasn't broken any real laws. It's not statutory rape. She's a consenting adult. Nobody was hurt. If she wasn't in his class, or likely to be in the future, I don't think there's anything more gross about it than any other 30 year old chasing 18 year olds.

I find a lot of things morally repulsive but don't think there should be laws against them (prostitution, certain types of porn, making your kid carry a "God Hates Fags" sign, spanking, rap music that denigrates women and gay people, training attack dogs, smoking around other people, shopping at Walmart, etc.)

Except in cases where one person's actions are creating clear physical danger for another person (who doesn't have a choice to get away from the situation) I think we should be really cautious about taking away the rights of consenting adults to do what they like, even when we find their choices morally repulsive.

[Chorophyll]

15. Agreed. This is a high school teacher, not someone instructing

other adults at an arts center or something. Sure, 18 is legal adulthood, but the relationship between a high school teacher and his or her students is not a relationship of equals. Even college professors get in trouble for this stuff nowadays.

[ZombieHorde]

45. What danger did the teacher put the student in? nt

[blueamy66]

108. No danger.

As I have stated before....I had a crush on a teacher...would have slept with him if he wanted me too....wouldn't have told a soul and would have moved on, I'm sure.

The girl is 18 and legal. Nothing to see here folks...move along.

[jmowreader]

71. Think of it as a senior-subordinate issue

The military does this and so do most corporations: someone in a position of authority over another person cannot enter into a personal relationship with that person. This is because it's bad for morale: the other troops will think the subordinate gets preferential treatment because of the relationship.

The Army really goes all out: even if there is no possible way the senior could be the supervisor of the subordinate, the relationship is forbidden. I'm thinking...maybe an artilleryman dating someone who worked in the communications center?

In this case, the kids will obviously think the student is getting A's without doing enough work to justify them because she's sleeping with one of the teachers.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Not interested in such "thinking," and I don't really care what the Army or some corporation does.

In this instance, we have the law, which says eighteen is the age of consent unless one happens to hold an occupation and/or be enrolled in a state institution of education, either/or, or both. Then the law is applied differently.

That is unacceptable on about five different levels - from constitutional equal-protection clause issues to privacy concerns - but let's put that aside: we are talking about applying criminal sanctions here, not firing a woman from WIDGETS-R-US for having sex with her secretary, or court-martialing some General for seducing that Lieutenant. We are talking about depriving a man of his freedom because he committed a legal act that only became illegal because of the profession he happened to be in when he performed that otherwise legal act.

That is highly problematic, as anyone with even the most cursory understanding of what the Civil Rights movement and Women Rights Revolution would know.

"In this case, the kids will obviously think the student is getting A's without doing enough work to justify them because she's sleeping with one of the teachers"

This is called "special pleading," a sort of logical fallacy, and is based on facts not in evidence in any event. But allow me to say this: even if we accept the totality of your fictional scenario above, I. DON'T. CARE. Those "kids" can think anything they want, and it matters not a whit. We are not talking about what people "think" and "feel" and "perceive," but what they DO.

In this case, two consenting adults performed a consensual sexual act. One of them is facing jail time for doing so. That shit don't work.

[cali]

11. It's a terrible idea

I suggest reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068

[provis99]

22. oh? What if he was a 22 year old teacher, and she a 23 year old student?

I've had students in my college classes older than me; it could happen in adult extension high school, too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. I believe the law in Kansas only covers K-12 students

Not many 23 year olds in high school.

[MilesColtrane]

54. What if it was a 30 year old teacher and an 18 year old college student?

Same ages, same teacher/student relationship, yet it is perfectly legal.

The only thing changed is the name of the school.

The guy is a POS, and if it were my daughter, I'd want to hurt him, but I do see the validity of the equal protection argument.

[Chorophyll]

3. Implicit in the teacher/student relationship is that the teacher

has power over the student, even if the student is 18. Wait until the kid graduates at least. (Unless the delightful man in question feels that 19 is too old for his thirty-something ass.) :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

10. +1. What separates us from our four-legged friends is the ability to

wait. It. Out.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

39. if I have learned only one thing from Democratic Underground it is...

any sort of expectation that adults refrain from irresponsible or inappropriate sexual conduct is puritanical fundamentalist repression. And any suggestion that children or others might be sheltered from such behavior is bigotry!

[ZombieHorde]

46. Neither participant in this case is a child. nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

73. I didn't say there was,

But a teacher fucking their student of any age is inappropriate.

[ZombieHorde]

76. I think states or corporations telling consenting adults they can not sleep

with each other is even more inappropriate. I believe adults should be in charge of their own sexuality.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

77. About a dozen different women report to me,

You see nothing inappropriate about me fooling around with direct subordinates?

[ZombieHorde]

78. If you and they are consenting adults, I don't think states or businesses should be allowed to

interfere.

Special circumstances may need special precautions, such as a prison guard sleeping with a prisoner.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

79. So you see absolutely no complicating power dynamics in a sexual relationship...

between myself who can fire, promote, increase the salary of or otherwise favor and a female subordinate who either fears for their continued employment or believes fucking me would be beneficial to them?

[apocalypsehow]

82. This is not about hiring, promoting or firing anyone: this is about putting a person in jail for an

otherwise legal act.

This "changing the subject" dodge really doesn't work with folks who are paying attention, you know it? :shrug:

Deal with the issue in the OP, not some dubious scenario involving your alleged personal work life.


Edit: typo.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

85. How is it a dodge? Are there no similar dynamics between students and teachers?

One has the power, one doesn't.

[apocalypsehow]

86. It is a total dodge - we're talking about putting a person in jail, not demoting them. Deal with the

specific issue in the OP, not some philosophical indulgence that has nothing to do with the specifics of it. Deal with the issue put to you, and quit trying to change the subject.

[JTFrog]

91. Graduating or not graduating could be a big incentive.

There is a power dynamic involved.

I should know. My senior year, when I was 17, one of my high school teachers threatened to flunk me if I didn't have sex with him. I would have lost any chance at my scholarship. Fortunately me and two other girls were a lot smarter than him and got him fired. But who knows how many girls he had put in that position before us or would have put in that position in the future. :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

92. Putting a person in jail for engaging in consensual sex between ADULTS is the issue here, not this

foggy, vague concept of "power dynamics."

Quit talking to me about "power dynamics" - they are not the issue here.

The issue here is two consenting adults had sex, and the state of Kansas wants to put one of them in jail for it.

This has nothing to do with anything else in the context of this story.

"My senior year, when I was 17, one of my high school teachers threatened to flunk me if I didn't have sex with him"

In the context of this story I ask: So what? :shrug:

This story is about an eighteen year old ADULT who had CONSENSUAL sex with another adult.

Quit trying to change the subject to something else.

[JTFrog]

93. It's about the position of power he holds over her.

Unless you are her, you have no idea why she had sex with the guy.

[apocalypsehow]

94. It's about no such thing: it's about the laws of the state of Kansas which sets the age of consent

at eighteen, unless one is either in a specific profession, or is enrolled in a public educational institution of said state.

"Unless you are her, you have no idea why she had sex with the guy"

We do know she considered it CONSENSUAL, and at that point neither mine nor your opinions really matter very much, yah know it? It's called "the Right to Privacy."

I'd look into the concept, were I you. :thumbsup:

[JTFrog]

95. If I fucked my teacher to pass, I'd call it consensual too.

:shrug:

I don't think he should go to jail, but he sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to teach anymore.

[apocalypsehow]

96. Then we agree! Haven't you read my full postings in this thread? I have said over & over & over &

over in this OP that I think his sorry ass should be fired, but that he shouldn't go to jail for consensual sex with another adult.

I'm so glad we have come together in agreement over this issue, my friend! :toast:



Edit: clarity.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

97. Abusing ones position to obtain sexual favors, abosolutey we are putting a person in jail!

There is a reasonable assumption in both criminal and civil law along with institutional policies that certain power relationships can't be free of potential coercion. So please refrain from certain types of fraternization. Most people in any line of work are intelligent enough to refrain from such activities if only for their own self-preservation. Others make the news for sexual harassment lawsuits or this...

It isn't a philosophical indulgence, it is a simple fact that a teacher, employer or other authority figure has disproportionate influence over the student or subordinate.

Freedom isn't the ability to physically do or say anything, it is the absence of coercion.

[apocalypsehow]

99. It *is* a philosophical indulgence since: (a) There is not the slightest shred of evidence that

*anyone* in this case "abused" their position to obtain sexual favors - quite the opposite, both parties continue to proclaim consent was freely given; (b) that "reasonable assumption" you quote in criminal law is simply non-applicable in this situation and (c) the only party with a remedy in civil law in this case would be the woman who claims that the sex was quite consensual, and doesn't feel she was the victim of anything (and is an adult, to boot); and (d) your logical fallacies, to wit, this Strawman: "Freedom isn't the ability to physically do or say anything, it is the absence of coercion"; no one, of course, has stated any such thing - does not work with folks with know better.

Now, you've been proven wrong on the law, you've been proven wrong on the facts, and you've learned that those of us who know better don't fall for silly diversionary debating tactics as summed up in your Strawman tactics above. The resort to logical fallacies when one has run out of facts and the actual law to cite is a form of concession, a concession that hinges upon that eternal desire to have the "last word," even when one has been defeated on the merits of the argument.

Since you have nothing cogent left to argue as regards either the law or the facts, and continue to attempt to dodge the issue before us with logical fallacies, I consider this discussion concluded, and your concession accepted. :thumbsup:

Good evening.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

101. I have conceded nothing, but you demonstrate my original point beautifully

There is no form of inappropriate sexual behavior that will not find enthusiastic and passionate defenders on Democratic Underground.

There are no circumstances in which a teacher in a position of authority over a student having a sexual relationship with that student is okay and in the state of Kansas it is criminal as it is a particularly objectionable as it is a tremendous breach of trust in the position held by teachers.

[ZombieHorde]

100. I understand there is a potential for sexual abuse and abuse of power,

but I think these potentials are always present. I also understand your motivation is not to suppress sexuality, but to protect people in disadvantaged situations.

I believe preventing beautiful expressions of sexuality because there will also be ugly expressions of sexuality and power, is a mistake. These laws are helpful for punishing the wicked, but they also punish healthy, sexual relationships.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

102. I suspect there are few "healthy sexual relationships" between pupils and thirty something teachers

Teenagers are more often than not horny as all fuck, but that doesn't mean teachers should be using their socially trusted position as teachers to find sexual partners among their students regardless of where they fall on the local age of consent.

[ZombieHorde]

104. Let's recap so we don't constantly go in circles...

-We both agree some people use their position to take sexual advantage of others.

-We both agree healthy sexual relationships can occur even if one person has more authority than the other at work or school.

If I understand your position correctly, you believe both of these relationships should be punished, while I believe only the first one should be punished.

I don't think we should punish good people in order to catch bad people. Punishing good people is unethical in my opinion, for obvious reasons.

I also believe classifying sexual situations as taboo hides, as opposed to prevents, the sexual situations. If the sexual situations are hidden, abusers have an easier time abusing.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

106. "good people" don't look for sexual partners among their students!

It is the ultimate violation of the trusted position in society they occupy, sorry I believe that moral absolutes both do and should exist and society does have the right to say certain things just aren't appropriate.

The age of consent in Kansas (and many states) is sixteen, sophomores and juniors. What sort of worldview does one need to have to believe that a thirty year old teacher chasing tail at school isn't criminal?

[ZombieHorde]

110. What do you use to guide your moral compass?

How do you determine moral absolutes?

"What sort of worldview does one need to have to believe that a thirty year old teacher chasing tail at school isn't criminal?"

If the sexual encounter is illegal, and a person does not believe the situation to be criminal, then the worldview would simply include a mistake about local laws.

[apocalypsehow]

90. I'm a Field Marshal in the Australian Army.

:eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Yeah, I think it more a case for firing / fines / professional de-certification.

Jail? No.

[seabeyond]

9. agree

surprised?

[dkf]

89. I agree with you

It's a firing offense, not a statuary rape case.

[Old Troop]

44. He holds a position of power

[Heidi]

48. Abuse of authority. (nt)

[Lyric]

12. I actually think he has a point.

About of-age students, at least. I can see that this might be an ethics violation that could result in the teacher being fired, but a CRIME? That might be a bit unfair.

Is it also a crime for a pastor to have sex with a legal adult in his congregation? What about a police officer? Or a college professor? 18 is adult. Teachers are indeed authority figures, but they aren't the only ones. I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of saying that someone in a position of authority cannot have sex with someone who is subject to their authority. Otherwise, we'd be imprisoning ministers, cops, professors, administrators, supervisors, and employers for having sex with someone who is legally an adult, but under their "authority".

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be CONSEQUENCES. By all means, if he agrees not to do it and then does it anyway, fire his ass. But I don't know if this is something that people should be criminally prosecuted for.

[JoePhilly]

57. It should be a potential crime so long as the sex occurs while the authority

figure has authority over the other "adult".

Some examples ...

The Boss will fire me if we don't have sex.
The COP will claim I was carrying drugs if we don't have sex.
The minister tells me that I will go to hell if we don't have sex.
The professor says I will fail the course if we don't have sex.

When you have "authority" over another, and you have sex with them, it should be a crime (the level of which would vary).

Imagine this ... a female student THINKS that she has to have sex with a professor, or he will fail her. He has to reject her advances. If he does not, he is still taking advantage of his authority over her.

[Lyric]

58. What you're describing is blackmail and/or extortion. That's already illegal in and of itself.

If there's no blackmail or extortion, explain to me again why it should be a crime for a pastor to have sex with an adult in his congregation....or a teacher to have sex with an adult student.

There's a difference between unethical and criminal. I agree that it's unethical. But a crime? No way.

[Xicano]

13. Slime or no slime. Any law against two consenting adults having sex is an outrage!

Fuck authoritarians! If anything there should be laws against people trying to restrict someone else from having autonomy over their own body.

The nerve of some people never ceases to amaze me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Even when one of those adults is in a position of power over the other?

The possible issue is that even when sex is consensual, pressure can be used to obtain consent.

I think that on balance this is probably a bad law - teachers who sleep with their students should probably be fired but not jailed - but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make out.

[Xicano]

36. But what's not "clear-cut" about it?

I'm sorry but your position is forced to assume that a student just by nature of being a student has somehow lost their ability to judge who they find sexually attractive and who they don't.

Again, if we are to go with that logic. What about President Clinton? Are you saying you agree with the republicans having issue with his sexual encounters with one of his interns? Because your assertion of "power over the other" equally applies in that situation too.

As for "pressure" as you put it. Pressure implies some sort of coercion which would then constitute rape. Just as with President Clinton's story I don't see anything about this story having anything to do with "pressure".

n/t

[cali]

37. yes. the institution itself (school, corporation) can have policies

against said behavior, the state should not.

[jberryhill]

98. The employer in this instance IS the state

Make up your mind.

Laws are how states express policies.

[wickerwoman]

53. If a 50 year old boss sleeps with his 25 year old secretary,

should simply the fact that he is in a position of power over her (he didn't overtly pressure or threaten her) be enough to make it a matter for the legal system?

I agree that fired, not jailed is an appropriate response in the case of teachers who sleep with adult students while they are in their classes. Other than that, I don't think it's anyone's business really.

I was a TA at a university when I was 23-24 and I had older students in my classes ask me out a few times to end-of-year parties. One guy was probably in his mid-30s and very cool. I actually would have considered going out with him but I was moving in a few months so I turned him down.

Many busy people in our modern, alienating society don't have tons of opportunities to meet other people if they don't enjoy going to bars. It's natural that people will hook up at work or through classes. As long as they're consenting adults and it doesn't interfere with their job performance or create conflicts of interest (as dating someone while they're in your class would), then I don't think it should be a matter for the legal system and arguably it shouldn't be a question for their employer either. Most jobs just require you to disclose the relationship. They don't take disciplinary action against you.

[zazen]

the resources could have been better used to arrest pimps

and johns who rape ("pay for") girls under 18.

I agree--fire him if he can't wait. But criminal prosecution? No.

[Codeine]

16. Any law that says two consenting adults can't have sex

can suck my balls. Nobody's goddamned business what two adults willingly do in the sack. Nobody's.

[Xicano]

21. Oh but Codeine some people say

If you walk into a classroom, as a student you somehow left your mind outside as to what you find sexually attractive.

Where have we seen this sort of logic before? Oh yeah, from the reich-wing regarding none other than President Clinton getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky.

[Hannah Bell]

87. bullshit.

[The Straight Story]

23. Feel the same way about adults drinking and smoking

But saying that here gets me labeled a libertarian...

[WinkyDink]

26. See: Clinton, Impeachment of William Jefferson.

[ZombieHorde]

47. +666 nt

[Goblinmonger]

52. As a teacher, this relationship is different.

I am teaching students that are adults now that I have taught since they were 14. The relationship we are in is just different. All they had to do was wait until the student was no longer his student and all is good. I'm not a big law fan, but this one makes sense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. The law can and should say who can be a teacher, however.

Yank their licenses.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

68. I believe it is illegal for a Kansas law to engage in "ball sucking" with an individual's testicles.

[MineralMan]

20. Does he have tenure?

Feh!

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Not anymore

LOL

[MineralMan]

33. Well, that's good.

:rofl:

[Xicano]

24. Cigar Anybody?

:evilgrin:

[onpatrol98]

28. Fired/Not Jail time

I think he should be fired not jailed because the student was 18. However, I think the benefit of the law allows future schools that do background checks a chance to see his unethical behavior around students. Yes, college professors can get into quite a bit of trouble for sleeping with students. And, I think they should. Sometimes students are easy targets for slime balls like this guy. They don't have to cruise bars to find them. There is a built in level of trust between students and many teachers. So, a character like this has half the work done. They can get a new younger model every year compliments of tax payers and trusting parents.

The guy is lame if nothing else. It would be hard for him to say (in my opinion) that he did not use his position as her teacher to sleep with her. Personally, since the guy really wants teachers to be able to sleep with students of any age, he's just a practical pedophile to me. He knew he would be in even bigger trouble had he picked a younger student. So, he went for the 18 year old instead.

Guys like this want easy pickings. Probably couldn't buy a date from an adult.

[Codeine]

30. "A practical pedophile"?

Pedophiles dig young kids, not high school students. If you're attracted to someone who is physically an adult you ain't even close to being a pedo.

[Heidi]

49. Are pedophiles attracted to the potential to exercise power, or to physical characteristics?

Maybe they're associated somehow?

[WinkyDink]

32. Anybody claiming a school is an outpost of total democracy is whacked. Student "adults" cannot say

any old swear-word they want---BECAUSE THEY ARE STUDENTS.

18-yr-olds cannot drink at school-sponsored events off-campus---BECAUSE THEY ARE STUDENTS.

18-yr-olds in school cannot wear whatever they want---BECAUSE THEY ARE STUDENTS.

ARE SOME OF YOU ACTUALLY UNAWARE THAT MANY, IF NOT MOST OR ALL, PRIVATE BUSINESSES HAVE RULES ABOUT SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPS?

THAT THE MILITARY HAS ANTI-FRATERNIZATION RULES?

[apocalypsehow]

83. One of the finest Strawmen I've ever seen erected here, since no one has "claimed" any such thing in

this thread - and that's really saying something, given my time at DU. I've seen a bunch of 'em. Your's is quite superior, almost a work of internet art.

AND. BY. THE. WAY. ARE. YOU. AWARE. YELLING. IN. CAPS. REALLY. DOESN'T. REALLY. IMPRESS. ANYONE? :shrug:

:eyes:

[blueamy66]

109. And those "military anti-fraternization rules" are followed

daily, I'm sure....NOT

She is 18. Two consenting adults. Geez, who is going to save our children???????

[LWolf]

34. Legal or not, it is certainly unprofessional and unethical for

teachers to have sex with adult students.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. When I was a Senior in High School, 1973, a friend of mine dated the

Music Teacher (fresh out of college...who was freakin' totally cool/cute/young/hippie-ish) and they managed to keep the affair a secret until after she graduated). I don't remember if she was 18 at the time...I don't think she was, but she could have been. They got married and moved away. They're still married...all these years later too. The High School did nothing, but I don't think they knew. I wonder if they would have done anything? 1973...free love and all that? I'm not so sure they would have done anything (especially if she was 18 years old). Her parents weren't happy, but accepted it and approved of the marriage. He was young, she was young.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Same thing happened at my high school

I'm not sure when they got together, just remember what the grape vine said about them, that they had hooked up. When the girl graduated, the teacher got a teaching position at her college. They were an 'out in the open' couple by Christmas of her freshman year in college. I remember my parents and the other adults were pretty upset about it at the time. But they couldn't have done much, unless they forced him to quit - not thinking he would follow her to college?

It was just strange. :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Mine too, except it was a female gym teacher.

Far as I know, they are still married.

[treestar]

43. I kind of see the point

If the little brats are allowed to have sex at will, what difference does it make how old the partner is? It seems we tolerate them having sex so long as it's with each other.

As to the power imbalance, that will occur throughout life. Should bosses be prohibited from sleeping with lower level employees? Doctors with patients, lawyers with clients? They are all above the age of consent.

[hayu_lol]

64. Hmmm...what about those youth ministers at fundy...

churches? These situations will always crop up and are difficult to resolve. Had a very young teacher on his first job here(OR)and he and a senior student became engaged. That was enough to get him fired. They later married and he is back here teaching high school music courses.

[Keith Bee]

61. Charles Edwards, Republican for Congress

Discipline is his platform!

[conspirator]

62. I dated a 17 year old when I was 28, and I don't feel any guilt about it

When I was 17, girls my age didn't even look at me, they all wanted men in their 20's.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. Were you her teacher?

[conspirator]

72. No nt

[joshcryer]

107. Oh I bet he taught her a thing or two...

...omg sorry, I couldn't help it. :rofl:

[ecstatic]

66. Students should be able to go into a class and learn without being

preyed upon by disgusting perverts who can't find anyone their own age. That goes for the 15 year old student as well as the 18 year old student. She may have willingly consented, but in 10 years max, she will realize just how sick that teacher really was.

[cali]

69. oh, please. He isn't necessarily sick and she may very well not

regret it or come to think of him as sick.

[Codeine]

74. Pervert? Sick?

Not everyone in a relationship with an age difference is a pervert, for fuck's sake. That's really as judgmental as all hell.

[EFerrari]

80. Seriously. The last thing anyone should have to worry about in a classroom

is their teacher coming on to them.

[apocalypsehow]

88. A civilized society doesn't put consenting adults in jail for sex. Seriously. n/t.

[hunter]

103. Maybe we should get rid of the 12th grade...

... so we don't have 18 year olds in high school. It would make the boundaries much clearer and it would be simple to implement. Call kindergarten first grade so kids graduate when they are 16 or 17. Or let eleventh grade be the senior year.

There are always a few bad apples teaching high school who are there for the wrong reasons. They shouldn't be teaching high school.

When I was in high school (in the confused 'seventies when we'd streak through the quad naked on a dare) there were a couple of teachers who were total creeps. There was stuff going on between students and teachers that would make the newspapers today. It's maybe not so bad now as this issue is not invisible. It was then. Nobody talked.

I disagree with some of the posters here. Even if this is a consensual relationship between the teacher and the student (like, what did I know when I was 18? Nothing.) I still can't feel sorry for this jackass teacher. As a parent I would make his life miserable.

"Martyr???" :puke:

[guruoo]

105. So I assume the same law would apply if she had been, say 45? nt