Female Teacher to be struck for sex with 15yo

[eroticartist]

winchy
You are absolutely right there, but what is a "child"?
Mike Freeman.

[eroticartist]

winchy,
Paedophiles are not interested in post pubertal females
Mike Freeman.

[dynatech]

We all should know Paedophile means people dangerously sexually attracted to children. That is CHILDREN, not necessarily the re-written legal definition, but those who find pre-pubescent children a turn-on - not those who find themselves, rightly or wrongly, entangled with jailbait.
However, idiots these days class the man who shags a pert-breasted 15 yr old (or in this case woman shagging a randy 15 yr old lad) as paedo's. They might be unwise, they may be guilty of crimes, they are not paedophiles

[crofter]

Yes but they will go on the sex offenders list just the same and will find it VERY HARD to get a decent job, but the point being made here is that a male having sex with a 15 year old pupil is classed as a dangerous pervert and a paedophile where as a woman doing the same seems not to be tarred with quite the same brush - she is just a goer ... On the bright side I have managed to squeeze into my school uniform got my mum to ready my packed lunch and shall now be stalking her looking for some teenage lovin!!

[Deano!]

dynatech wrote:

(snip)
> However, idiots these days class the man who shags a
> pert-breasted 15 yr old (or in this case woman shagging a randy
> 15 yr old lad) as paedo's. They might be unwise, they may be
> guilty of crimes, they are not paedophiles

Interesting to hear interviews with women now in their 80's talking about how they met their husbands. Its surprising how many of them were only 15 or 16 when they met some 21 guy year old back from the war, the married them a year or so later. At the time, it wasn't considered anything outrageous.

[Brooksie]

Social mores change all the time, that's why it bothers me when people talk as if the modern way is the 'fixed' way, and every other time was wrong, as if they have some monopoly on wisdom when all they're doing is parroting what they've been told.

16 year old girls are ready to breed, there's no getting away from that. They may be immature, but they're ready. The only difference between now and the past is hardly anyone is marring them to have sex with them, they're just having sex with no genuine commitment. The idea that marring a 15 or 16 year old as they did in the past is a ridiculous idea from an unenlightened time is a massive conceit (and a stupid one). More 15 and 16 year old girls today are having sex with people than they ever did in the past. Modern morality hasn't pushed down underage sex, it's pushed it up. Say what you want about the past: At least the sex came with commitment. Having said that, girl's in the 50's had a lot less of a god complex than those today. I wouldn't blame a guy who didn't want to commit to a teenage girl even if he was having sex with them

The word paedophile is always grotesquely misused too, some people just aren't able to grasp that a 15 year old girl holds no interest to a true paedo, a 5 year old maybe - not 15. Grass on the pitch means no play to a paedophile. But over and over you get the same tired cliched inaccuracies, people just keep repeating what they've been told. I had a conversation once where a woman stated that a man in his 30's lusting after a woman in her 20's was a step away from paedophilia! And yet she still thought she had the moral high ground.

The one that get's me the most is the term 'statutory rape'. Now to me, rape means forced sex (or sex where consent is invalid due to drugs/unconciousness etc), and just because consent is considered legally invalid in a girl under a certain age (18 in some US states!) does not mean the sex that took place is 'rape' of any kind. It's a far too emotive and misleading term. The term 'underage sex' is more accurate. To me, 'statutory rape' is like saying 'accidental murder' - it's an oxymoron, because it's dependent on the word used having a direct meaning in the action described: Murder is deliberate, therefore cannot be accidental. Rape is forced and therefore lacking consent, invalidating it legally does not remove the consent, it just makes the act a crime, but whatever the crime is it's not rape since consent has still been given.

[one eyed jack]

Rules is rules.

The fact she gave herself up must be considered at least in her favour. Plus she lost her job so I would consider that her penance.

I just wish my chemistry and french teachers did this when i was at school. I certainly wouldnt have complained.