[Shaddim]

So a local teacher, 25 y/o woman, is going to be fired from a local school for having sex with a student. Apparently it all started 3 months before his 18th birthday, after they met at a Christmas party this last December (not a school function). Here's where it gets murky, she isn't one of his teachers, in fact, she doesn't even teach at his school, she teaches 7th grade science and math at a nearby middle school. The school board has a zero tolerance policy regarding sexual relations between teachers and students, but I think in this instance her dismissal goes over the line. What's worse, there may even be criminal charges pending. This just bugs me, and if the genders were reversed I believe I would feel the same way. Where's the harm here, or am I completely off-base?


(For those curious, she does have some of that "librarian-type hotness" going on, on a 1-10 she's a solid 7, IMO. In other words, way more attractive than a normal male teen could reject, hormones and all that. He's an athlete, a local soccer phenom, >6' tall and can easily pass for 21, if you aren't looking too closely. I know, "WE WANT PICS!" Well, I don't have any, the news hasn't taken off with the story yet and frankly dragging this woman through the cyber mud isn't anything I would want to do anyway. I will say she kinda looks like a geeky Kate Beckinsale.)


Where were these hotties when I was in HS, dammit!?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Yeah the different school part kills the position of authority portion. If you take the policy that literally they she couldn't date a college senior who's also 25 who goes to a college in Europe.

We had one hot teacher in my HS, she tough History, I think it was her first year teaching? 20+ years makes things fuzzy.

[mattyb]

Strangely I agree with you Shaddim. Did she know that he wasn't 18? Did she know that he was a student in one of the schools that her school board is responsable for?

====

I went to a Catholic boarding school, mostly priests, brothers and nuns, but there were a few lay teachers. And one VERY hot Irish blonde. She was Glynis Barber's double : Dempsey and Makepeace (an Episode Guide) with a soft Irish accent that just made us drool - I was 15. Like the other blokes in the class, I would have done anything to get into her knickers.

[Laminar]

Nice.

Looks like age of consent in TN is 18, with a close-in-age exemption for someone less than 4 years older, so by law it's statutory rape.

[andi*pandi]

The different schools thing is important... but then again, it's the same town. If she can prove they didn't have sex until he was 18...

[Shaddim]

As of this morning she has a competent lawyer (mine), so we'll see how things pan out. To me, the different schools part is where it all hinges, she apparently had no clue that it was still considered a "student-teacher" relationship, and her young beau convinced her that 17 was the age of consent in TN and that it was all above board. Of course, when you're young (they both are) and excited, judgement isn't as sharp as it would be otherwise. As I understand it, at times she was staying at the young man's home overnight, with his parents' consent, so...

[reader50]

If he looks old enough, and she looks young enough, there may be no intent to break the law. He might not have known how "old" she was. Not exactly the first thing a girl volunteers.

Also, I'd be more concerned if the girl were the younger party. The girl tends to get stuck with any unintended results - I've never seen the guy get stuck with the pregnancy. When the girl is the employed adult, that's much less a life-changer then if she were the minor.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As I understand it, at times she was staying at the young man's home overnight, with his parents' consent, so...

Wonder if thats a good thing or a bad thing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Wonder if thats a good thing or a bad thing.

Neither. There are some incredibly bad parents out there.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, all innocence, age difference, etc. aside, you'd have to be a moron to sleep with any kid who hadn't graduated high school yet as a teacher.

[andi*pandi]

Teacher not being too terribly clueful about the legal age of consent and school policy, yes.

[boy8cookie]

[Shaddim]

Yes, because she should be ogled and berated by strangers online, for her "crime". I guess you missed my comment in the OP:

I know, "WE WANT PICS!" Well, I don't have any, the news hasn't taken off with the story yet and frankly dragging this woman through the cyber mud isn't anything I would want to do anyway.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As of this morning she has a competent lawyer (mine), so we'll see how things pan out. To me, the different schools part is where it all hinges, she apparently had no clue that it was still considered a "student-teacher" relationship, and her young beau convinced her that 17 was the age of consent in TN and that it was all above board. Of course, when you're young (they both are) and excited, judgement isn't as sharp as it would be otherwise. As I understand it, at times she was staying at the young man's home overnight, with his parents' consent, so...

If he was under the age of consent none of this matters. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." and all that jazz.

OAW

[Shaddim]

It does if his parents won't pursue charges and he refuses to incriminate her, the DA won't waste their time on a case like that, it would be like trying to swim upstream, backwards. Not to mention there's a difference between your average public defender and an Ivy League merc clad in Henry Poole. Unless there's a lot more to all this, there's no way she'll see the inside of a jail cell.

[subego]

I was going to say something similar. Statuatory rape is sort of a grey area in that it requires an unusual level of cooperation for it to be prosecuted.

I was also going to say something similar to what OAW said. A potential felony rap is enough to fire someone, but then I read the part about everyone who would need to cooperate having no interest in doing so.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Unless there's a lot more to all this, there's no way she'll see the inside of a jail cell.

I would hope not, it's the ending of her teaching career I see as more likely.

[Chongo]

If the roles were reversed and the teacher was a male, his butt would be in jail without bail, regardless if the parents allowed the relationship.

This one needs to be locked up and the key thrown away.

Florida teacher faces 20 more charges over sexual relationship with another student: cops - NY Daily News

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If the roles were reversed and the teacher was a male, his butt would be in jail without bail, regardless if the parents allowed the relationship.

I agree with the premise (that the gender of the teacher should not matter), but not necessarily with the conclusion: if there is no connection to the student (e. g. the student is at a different school) and had reached the age of consent, I think it should be completely legal.

But I agree, it rubs me the wrong way that »daughters« are treated differently than sons, and that the first reaction is to ask whether the (female) teacher was hot.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Statuatory rape is sort of a grey area in that it requires an unusual level of cooperation for it to be prosecuted.

But is it even statutory rape if the student is at a different school and has reached age of consent (the student here was 17 which, I assume, is above the age of consent in his state)?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Nice.

Looks like age of consent in TN is 18, with a close-in-age exemption for someone less than 4 years older, so by law it's statutory rape.

Was this missed?

She may not see jail time without cooperation from the guy/parents, but it is pretty damn clear that she should at least lose her job and, possibly, her profession.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It does if his parents won't pursue charges and he refuses to incriminate her, the DA won't waste their time on a case like that, it would be like trying to swim upstream, backwards.

Indeed. But then that begs the question. How does the school board or the DA even know about this? Your OP didn't go into details ... but more often than not in these situations it's the parents who are the one raising the stink about it. Generally speaking, the teenage boy is NOT the one who has an issue with all this. Just saying ...

OAW

[ShortcutToMoncton]

After some thought throughout the day, I'm having a hard time figuring out why this situation should "bug" you, Shaddim (as per your initial comments).

We have a 25-year-old female teacher sleeping with a 17-year-old grade-12 student. The age of consent is apparently 18 in the state, which would make this a technical case of statutory rape (from Shaddim's comments it sounds like the parents have or are providing their consent post him turning 18 - I don't know how exactly it works but would assume that modifies the statutory rape situation to some degree).

It sounds like the schools may be run by the same school board to which the teacher has an employment contract; but even so, thinking logically I would not be surprised that any contractual or fiduciary duty of a teacher not to engage in sexual activity with students extends to all applicable students, not just those specifically in the same school or taught by the teacher. I could certainly be wrong, but I really have a hard time believing that a teacher can get around the "student-teacher relationship" simply by sleeping with students from the school next door. Maybe someone can look that up...?

I mean....25 and late-17 would absolutely and completely bug me as very borderline wrong in today's age, in particular where the elder is a schoolteacher and has contractual and professional obligations to specifically not engage in this exact conduct.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

and her young beau convinced her that 17 was the age of consent in TN and that it was all above board.

I would assume (without knowing at all) that "I didn't know the legal age" is a very popular defence against statutory rape. I would also assume (again without knowing) that it is generally not a successful defence, for reasons that I would normally say are very obvious but yet may not be, given that you appeared to be giving credence to this argument when you wrote it.

Care to elaborate on the above?

[Shaddim]

I think people bugged by this are people who let themselves get irritated over all kinds of things that are seldom their business. One would need to assume that 17 year-olds are rarely sexually active (incorrect) and that a person who is just 3 months shy of their 18th birthday would be traumatized by sexual relations with someone 7 years their senior (very unlikely). When I was that age I had a great physical relationship with a woman in her early 40s that lasted a whole summer. It was a wonderfully educational time in my life. In fact, it's the natural time for that type of exploration and expression.

Overly prudish busybodies irritate me. They didn't bother to talk with the young man, or even her, for that matter. They simply tried to force their puritanical BS down the couple's throat and destroy the young lady's career in the process. Hello, it's 2014, not 1814, get with the times, people.

I would assume (without knowing at all) that "I didn't know the legal age" is a very popular defence against statutory rape. I would also assume (again without knowing) that it is generally not a successful defence, for reasons that I would normally say are very obvious but yet may not be, given that you appeared to be giving credence to this argument when you wrote it.

Care to elaborate on the above?

That's quite an assumption, the impression I have is that he was mistaken WRT the statutory rape laws and she wasn't familiar with them. It's unfair to believe that she was willfully violating the law, even if that law is absurd.

[subego]

@Shortcut

17¾ bugs you but 18 doesn't? Or does 18 also bug you and you are taking one for the team in that regard?

[andi*pandi]

This is an edge case. However, the example that Chongo cited is of a serial abuser.

There is power in age, and a position of authority. No matter if teenagers don't mind being taken advantage of.

I want to follow Shaddim's rationale, because it was so close to the age of consent, and the age difference is not that huge, etc. I knew people in college who dated professors, and grad TAs who dated freshmen.

However, then I imagine my child in that situation and yes, I'd be angry.

[subego]

Which, in a sense, is exactly why SR laws are the way they are.

This kid's parents have a very different view.


I don't have kids, so I can only imagine as a hypothetical parent of a hypothetical child with a hypothetical gender.

I'll admit, my gut feeling is to have a double standard. Men and women (or young men and young women) play very different kinds of power games, in large part as an outgrowth of the default societal assumptions of who's in "charge" of a relationship. To put it another way, older guy and younger girl bothers me more than the reverse.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

@shortcut

17¾ bugs you but 18 doesn't? Or does 18 also bug you and you are taking one for the team in that regard?

25/2 + 7 = 19.5

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Shortcut

17¾ bugs you but 18 doesn't? Or does 18 also bug you and you are taking one for the team in that regard?

To explain further:

1. 18 does not bug me if between two consenting adults with no fiduciary relationships. It will always vary from case to case and location to location, but generally speaking in North America I would postulate that we consider 18 the age at which someone becomes an adult and can make their own decisions when it comes to free love but not drinking.

2. When it comes to sexual relationships, I would further postulate that in NA we have a generally accepted standard that people under 18 can usually have consensual sex with each other, but if the other person is over 18 then specific rules apply (e.g. consent of parents, specific differences in ages, etc.).

3. 18 is apparently the age of consent in TN. At 17 3/4, the guy was therefore under the statutory age of consent in general, and the girl was clearly nowhere near the allowed "age range" of consent.

4. Girl was a school teacher, and therefore has a long and likely well-established set of contractual rules and fiduciary duties to students, which would extend to a student even if they were over the age of 18 (i.e. student was born in March had already turned 18 before graduating high school).

5. I guess you could add 1-4 together and there's the source of my discontent. That explain?

[subego]

Yank everything out of the scenario except for the ages.

Scenario one:
17¾ male with 25 female.

Scenario two:
18 male with 25 female.


Is one "bad" and the other "okay"? Both "bad"? Compare and contrast these two scenarios.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think people bugged by this are people who let themselves get irritated over all kinds of things that are seldom their business.

Oh, so clear statutory rape and a violation of schoolteacher-student contractual/fiduciary obligations is not something that is the business of the general public? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that those are generally considered instances worth of public debate.

One would need to assume that 17 year-olds are rarely sexually active (incorrect)

Your statement is irrelevant and incorrect. The reason statutory rape laws exist in the first place is an acknowledgement that teenagers have sex with other teenagers or people relatively close to their own age. The correct comparison is assuming that 17-year-olds are rarely sexually active with 25-year-olds. Is that incorrect? I honestly do not know, but in my life experience it would certainly have been a rarity.

and that a person who is just 3 months shy of their 18th birthday would be traumatized by sexual relations with someone 7 years their senior (very unlikely). When I was that age I had a great physical relationship with a woman in her early 40s that lasted a whole summer. It was a wonderfully educational time in my life. In fact, it's the natural time for that type of exploration and expression.

You seem happy to deliberately ignore:
1. The legal age of sexual consent in the state as determined by public statute; and
2. The contractual and/or fiduciary duties of a school teacher towards a school student.

It seems very likely that the teacher broke both of those "rules". Isn't that why she was dismissed, and not because of any specific harm to the student?

Is it your stance that statutory rape and student-teacher sexual relationships should be evaluated on the basis of whether the underage person is "okay" with the relationship at the time? That seems to be what you're saying.

Overly prudish busybodies irritate me. They didn't bother to talk with the young man, or even her, for that matter. They simply tried to force their puritanical BS down the couple's throat and destroy the young lady's career in the process. Hello, it's 2014, not 1814, get with the times, people.

You seem deliberately happy to label the legal age of sexual consent and contractual and/or fiduciary duties of a school teacher towards a school student as "puritanical BS".

That's quite an assumption, the impression I have is that he was mistaken WRT the statutory rape laws and she wasn't familiar with them. It's unfair to believe that she was willfully violating the law, even if that law is absurd.

"Willfully violating"? Would "recklessly violating" not be just as appropriate? How did that conversation go?

G: "I'm a schoolteacher. I'm 25. You're hot."
B: "I'm a high school student. I'm 17. You're hot."
...
G: "...I'm pretty sure it's okay. Let's do it."

Hell, I would dismiss her just for stupidity, if I could. I guess you're a big believer in ignorance of the law being an excuse, huh?

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I want to follow Shaddim's rationale, because it was so close to the age of consent, and the age difference is not that huge, etc. I knew people in college who dated professors, and grad TAs who dated freshmen.

Hell, I slept with a university TA and have some great/scandalous campfire stories. Beyond any issues of teacher-student relationship that might apply (contractual or fiduciary), when it comes to college/university both are generally of the age of consent.

In this instance, the student was clearly not of the legal age of consent.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yank everything out of the scenario except for the ages.

Scenario one:
17¾ male with 25 female.

Scenario two:
18 male with 25 female.


Is one "bad" and the other "okay"? Both "bad"? Compare and contrast these two scenarios.

Stop being pedantic. I'm not going to argue arbitrary age rules. At some point a person can legally be charged as an adult, can drive certain vehicles, can drink, can collect a pension...and at some point before that time, they cannot legally do any of those things.

If you are trying to make the argument that all arbitrary legal age limits should be assessed on an individual basis, then come out and say it. What I'm saying is that is seems to violate existing statutory rape laws in effect.

Or if the applicability of statutory rape is assessed by gauging the maturity level of the younger participant, by all means please let me know. I have no idea.

[Shaddim]

Would it bother me if my going-on-18 y/o daughter was having sex with someone who is 25? No it wouldn't, male or female, as long as she's being responsible. Even though I'll love her forever, no matter what, it's her life, not mine.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

To explain further:

1. 18 does not bug me if between two consenting adults with no fiduciary relationships. It will always vary from case to case and location to location, but generally speaking in North America I would postulate that we consider 18 the age at which someone becomes an adult and can make their own decisions when it comes to free love but not drinking.

2. When it comes to sexual relationships, I would further postulate that in NA we have a generally accepted standard that people under 18 can usually have consensual sex with each other, but if the other person is over 18 then specific rules apply (e.g. consent of parents, specific differences in ages, etc.).

3. 18 is apparently the age of consent in TN. At 17 3/4, the guy was therefore under the statutory age of consent in general, and the girl was clearly nowhere near the allowed "age range" of consent.

4. Girl was a school teacher, and therefore has a long and likely well-established set of contractual rules and fiduciary duties to students, which would extend to a student even if they were over the age of 18 (i.e. student was born in March had already turned 18 before graduating high school).

5. I guess you could add 1-4 together and there's the source of my discontent. That explain?

You are way too obsessed with the letter of the law. There are many of them that I put little to no stock in, and some that I essentially ignore altogether.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You are way too obsessed with the letter of the law. There are many of them that I put little to no stock in, and some that I essentially ignore altogether.

Yes, a schoolteacher having statutory rape sex with a high school student is just so non-worthy of anyone's time.

That was sarcasm.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You are way too obsessed with the letter of the law. There are many of them that I put little to no stock in, and some that I essentially ignore altogether.

A lawyer cares about the letter of the law? Get out of here.

[subego]

@Shortcut

I have zero interest in arguing anything, I'm interested in your opinion, and have interests in opinions which aren't necessarily the same as my own. If I wasn't, I'd never learn anything.

That said, I'm not so interested in your opinion I'm going to brook a torrent of crankypants to get there.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh, so clear statutory rape and a violation of schoolteacher-student contractual/fiduciary obligations is not something that is the business of the general public? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that those are generally considered instances worth of public debate.

Not at their age, not really.

Your statement is irrelevant and incorrect. The reason statutory rape laws exist in the first place is an acknowledgement that teenagers have sex with other teenagers or people relatively close to their own age. The correct comparison is assuming that 17-year-olds are rarely sexually active with 25-year-olds. Is that incorrect? I honestly do not know, but in my life experience it would certainly have been a rarity.

Your statement is irrelevant and incorrect. Statutory rape laws are to protect children, and a 17-nearly-18 y/o isn't a child.

You seem happy to deliberately ignore:
1. The legal age of sexual consent in the state as determined by public statute; and
2. The contractual and/or fiduciary duties of a school teacher towards a school student.

It isn't her school, he isn't her student. The rest: I don't care.

It seems very likely that the teacher broke both of those "rules". Isn't that why she was dismissed, and not because of any specific harm to the student?

She's not been dismissed yet, they're saying she will be. Currently she's on paid administrative leave.

Is it your stance that statutory rape and student-teacher sexual relationships should be evaluated on the basis of whether the underage person is "okay" with the relationship at the time? That seems to be what you're saying.

Him not actually being her student, or even a student in her school, is the most important aspect in this. In this case I don't see anything TO evaluate, because I don't see that anything wrong was done.

You seem deliberately happy to label the legal age of sexual consent and contractual and/or fiduciary duties of a school teacher towards a school student as "puritanical BS".

Yes, I think you're embracing puritanical BS and are being excessively conservative. They've never had a student/teacher relationship, for them it's always been romantic.

"Willfully violating"? Would "recklessly violating" not be just as appropriate? How did that conversation go?

G: "I'm a schoolteacher. I'm 25. You're hot."
B: "I'm a high school student. I'm 17. You're hot."
...
G: "...I'm pretty sure it's okay. Let's do it."

I guess you're a big believer in ignorance of the law being an excuse, huh?

Personally, I think ignoring stupid laws is a valid excuse. What little you know of this and you've already judged her and him? That's kind if... despicable, don't you think?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

A lawyer cares about the letter of the law? Get out of here.

He is? That's disconcerting. My lawyer isn't even close to being so anal about it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, a schoolteacher having statutory rape sex with a high school student is just so non-worthy of anyone's time.

That was sarcasm.

That's silly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Shortcut

I have zero interest in arguing anything, I'm interested in your opinion, and have interests in opinions which aren't necessarily the same as my own. If I wasn't, I'd never learn anything.

That said, I'm not so interested in your opinion I'm going to brook a torrent of crankypants to get there.

My opinion was that this seemed to be an example of statutory rape as defined purely by age.

If you feel that a conclusion of statutory rape is or should be assessed on factors other than age as defined by legislation, then you can so tell me why that is so, and accordingly ask for my revised opinion/assessment.

Do you see where I an going with this?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He is? That's disconcerting. My lawyer isn't even close to being so anal about it.

How surprising, given that you apparently paying him to represent her interest, seeing that he is willing to discuss these extremely client-confidential details with you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

How surprising, given that you apparently paying him to represent her interest, seeing that he is willing to discuss these extremely client-confidential details with you.

I'm not paying him anything, I asked him to look into it and he's advising her, pro bono. Also, I've not discussed any of this with him, not since he first talked with her. Do you normally jump to this many conclusions? As an attorney, is that prudent behavior?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

A. You provided a fact scenario and asked for opinions;

B. I gave a non-legal opinion based on the fact scenario, without having any further knowledge of the facts and clearly stating I know little to nothing about the specific laws that might apply;

C. You accuse me of jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

That about sum it up?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yank everything out of the scenario except for the ages.

Scenario one:
17¾ male with 25 female.

Scenario two:
18 male with 25 female.


Is one "bad" and the other "okay"? Both "bad"? Compare and contrast these two scenarios.

I guess to sum up my original cranky pants response(s), what I am trying to illustrate is:

19 male with 25 female.
18 male with 25 female.
17 male with 25 female.
16 male with 25 female.
15 male with 25 female.
14 male with 25 female.

Which is "bad" and which is "okay"? Well, apparently that has been enough of a problem to evaluate that statutory rape laws were invented.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Your statement is irrelevant and incorrect. Statutory rape laws are to protect children, and a 17-nearly-18 y/o isn't a child.

Children, eh? That must be why the age of consent is generally pegged anywhere from 14 to 18, and includes age range limits on the older partner.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

A. You provided a fact scenario and asked for opinions;

B. I gave a non-legal opinion based on the fact scenario, without having any further knowledge of the facts and clearly stating I know little to nothing about the specific laws that might apply;

C. You accuse me of jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

That about sum it up?

What about the part where you said my attorney is behaving unethically without a shred of evidence? I never said anything like that. All along you've been making terrible assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Children, eh? That must be why the age of consent is generally pegged anywhere from 14 to 18, and includes age range limits on the older partner.

Yes, children, because in some jurisdictions 17 is still considered a minor child, not because it's logical, but because it's an easy blanket to use.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What about the part where you said my attorney is behaving unethically without a shred of evidence? I never said anything like that. All along you've been making terrible assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

No, I said you were paying him, i.e. you were involved as his client. Otherwise he would not have discussed with you. What was that about jumping to conclusions?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, children, because in some jurisdictions 17 is still considered a minor child, not because it's logical, but because it's an easy blanket to use.

Lol. You...you do see where I'm going with this, right? You're using the legal definition of a minor child to conclude that statutory rape laws should not apply to a minor child. I mean...help me out here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

No, I said you were paying him, i.e. you were involved as his client. Otherwise he would not have discussed with you. What was that about jumping to conclusions?

You're not this obtuse. As I said before, he hasn't discussed anything with me about her since he's taken her on. It's pretty crappy to assume that he's been behaving unethically.

Lol. You...you do see where I'm going with this, right? You're using the legal definition of a minor child to conclude that statutory rape laws should not apply to a minor child. I mean...help me out here.

I'm using the definition to show that the people who make the laws are often lazy and don't understand what they're doing, so they make large blankets to cover as many as possible.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're not this obtuse. As I said before, he hasn't discussed anything with me about her since he's taken her on. It's pretty crappy to assume that he's been behaving unethically.

I find it super interesting that you continue down this road of baseless accusations whilst simultaneously accusing others of jumping to conclusions. I clearly said nothing about behaving unethically; I said you were somehow his client.

I'm using the definition to show that the people who make the laws are often lazy and don't understand what they're doing, so they make large blankets to cover as many as possible.

So basically, this thread is partially about your broader argument that the issue of statutory age of consent is either incorrect, or should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

And the other part is something to do with your rejection of contractual terms and/or the fiduciary duties of school teachers and/or authority figures over school students.

Perhaps we might be able to give better responses if you actually clarified these things up front, rather than introducing them after the fact in an oblique and reactionary fashion?