Cops: Female instructor, 25, slept with 4 teen boy students, 2 in same night - Story

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points67 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Birb-Man 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]machingunwhhore 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Singulaire 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]v574v 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neko404 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lil3faith 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pz5 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lil3faith 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]myspamhere 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andybev01 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobbi_fettucini 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moln0014 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sniffles_McGilligudy 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lil3faith 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]EgoandDesire 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountVonVague 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EgoandDesire 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -53 points-52 points-51 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lil3faith 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -20 points-19 points-18 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Lets say a woman is legally over the limit for alcohol and considered incapable of consenting to sex. But she's still lucid and talking, and she begs to be fucked. is the drunk guy that fucks her also raping her because she is 'legally unable to consent' despite craving dick?

What I find offensive is how you conflate willing and participatory sex with real, tried and true, force fucking. Like a dad or mother who force fucks their 10 year old child. Or possibly the Mi Lay massacre wherein soldiers force fucked women before shooting them in the head.

Rape is against someone's will and desires. It controls their body when they DONT WANT something.

Let's talk a 17 year old and 18 year old in California. Its Statutory Rape for an 18 year old to fuck a 17 year old, no matter how much the 17 year old begs for the cock (or vagina).

Your suggestion that since the law was technically broken, this 17 year old is a victim of the most horrific mind destroying crime even though they had sex with someone a year older than them, they're 17, and they wanted to have sex. You're putting them on equal terms with people who are VIOLENTLY VIOLATED.

All because the law was technically broken.

That's pretty fucked up, because you're saying that true rape victims are on the same level as a 17 and 18 year old fucking in California (which should be apparent and self-evidently seen as not very harmful, if at all).

Do you really mean to suggest that rape is not so harmful?

I'm having a false conversation with you because I'd really like to have started with "so what about a 17 and 18 year old? Is that also rape"? Because I'd want to honestly tease out the situation through a dialogue, but this kind of discussion often fails to happen through text-based communication, partly due to the ability to think long and hard about it, partly due to the effect of a spectator crowd.

Its a bit dishonest of me, but I want to make the point that we don't always see the statutory rape laws as truly indicative of rape in the context of a 17 and 18 year old, therefore we cannot view the technical breach of the law as proof of rape. We have to judge by circumstance.

Furthermore, the concept of age of consent being up at 16-18 was intended, in the past, only to punish males who had sex with females and lowering female's sexual status and ability to marry a man with money. In the 2000+ era, the postmodernists have applied Marxist theory of Power Dynamics and Oppressor vs Oppressed to keep age of consent from being revised or changed into something more like the Dutch or German model, something more realistic.

As far as that goes, feminists really did use Marxist theory to raise it in the late 1800's to early 1900s anyway, but the matter was pretty much settled... for about 10 years, at which time people were challenging the validity of age of consent. The US supreme court or some other branch, I forget which, upheld the notion of unilateral invokation of age of consent (males are the criminal, not the female), because of the risk of pregnancy. Once again, it upholds the gender dynamic of females as oppressed by males.

There has been more than one 'questioning' of the age of consent's target age range over the last century and a half in the U.S. each time struck down by this kind of rationale.

But lately its starting to fade. In a more egalitarian society, where women are not really damaged by sex outside marriage, the concept of age of consent being so high to punish males seems archaic. So we need a new enemy. Que the 90's with the pedo/sex predator hysteria.

Do you know that most young people believe pedophiles are people who violate the age of consent? That means if you're 20 or 25 or 30, and you fuck a 17 year old in Cali, you're a pedophile to their way of thinking? No longer does pedophilia mean sex with True and Actual children, that is prepubescent individuals who aren't in the adolescent phase of life. Now it means, colloquially, anyone having sex with someone under the age of consent. Even as the law does not define pedophilia that way or even at all (pedophilia is after all a psychiatric definition, not a legal one).

Why has it come to this where such a concept is heavily entrenched in the culture? Because of the intentional conflation by news outlets and even government bodies that sex with the underage is pedophilia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html

Some psychologists questioned the authors' methods. But the academic subtleties were forgotten when Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the talk radio host, denounced the article on her show. Soon conservatives were attacking it as an endorsement of pedophilia, and eventually the United States House of Representatives passed a unanimous resolution condemning it.

The book does not, in fact, endorse pedophilia. What Ms. Levine does argue is that the fear of pedophilia is overblown and that the age of consent should be lowered in certain circumstances.

It is almost a giant strawman created for the intention of disallowing any questioning of this subject at all among peers or in the public eye.

Abusing people sexually is wrong. It doesn't matter what age the abuser is. But what constitutes abuse, when should people be punished for it, and when should we allow people to start taking sexual risks?

Consider that we see willing sexual activity as far more dangerous and deadly than handing minors alcohol or drugs. Something which we then turn around and say "hey, minors should be able to fuck other minors and not be penalized legally, that's just crazy and unfair!".

To date, 90% of sex offenders who are under 18 are males. That goes back to the concept of treating male as the 'offender/oppressor' of females in sexual activity.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-teen-rape-double-standard

After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town commited the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?

According to Dr. Klein, however, the double standard emerged from the historical treatment of women as the property of men. “Women were not considered to be sexually autonomous beings,” he said. “Their sexuality was never considered to be a weapon. It was never considered that it could damage somebody else’s property. But men have the ability to damage another man’s property with their sexuality by violating their daughter or by violating their wife. So just bring that system of thinking forward into the present day and you get 17-year-old boys that are still considered to have the potential of damaging something with their sexuality, while it’s much harder for people to imagine a 17-year-old girl causing harm with her sexuality.”

The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.

A 17 year old, who happens to be male, fucks a 14 year old female and could get 40 years. A 17 year old female who fucks a 14 year old male can get 9 months, max.

Once again, they've reinforced my claim, that I've synthesized from numerous sources, that sexuality is seen as an oppressing act if its male on female (this is incidentally why feamel teachers fucking students often receive lenient sentences while men receive harsh ones), and it was built on Marxist theory used by feminism.

The suffragette slogan was "votes for women, chastity for men".

If we start questioning age of consent, we start questioning our last century of history of destroying and dehumanizing lives, especially young lives, in the witch hunt to free our society of ills.

And it is a witch hunt. It has all the hallmarks.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, when both parties are incapable of consent it's not an offense ... Mala in se is not present, mala prohibita is not present, acteus rea and mens rea are also not present.... there is no presence for an offense.... your scenario also require the accused man to KNOW she was incapable of providing consent.. lucid means capable of consent, able to drive and able to think are two very different standards...
Sooo if the ten year old child was willing it'd be okay in your eyes? that's some fucked up shit.
Rape can be present regardless of bodily desire. It's a physical reaction.
Mala prohibita exists, I don't know California statutes well enough
Statutory rape, is rape without violence, so no it is not on the same terms, it's called statutory since it violates a statute, not because of violence or force...
A broken law is a broken law....
That's the statutes.
No, every one is suggesting the opposite... rape is harmful, what this woman did is a criminal act... she did not sleep with, she raped.

[+]mwobuddy -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

No, when both parties are incapable of consent it's not an offense ... Mala in se is not present, mala prohibita is not present, acteus rea and mens rea are also not present.... there is no presence for an offense.... your scenario also require the accused man to KNOW she was incapable of providing consent.. lucid means capable of consent, able to drive and able to think are two very different standards...

Tell that to all the underage males in jail for sex with underage females.

A broken law is a broken law....

true, like being black and using a whites only water fountain. Or running away from your slavemaster.

Sooo if the ten year old child was willing it'd be okay in your eyes? that's some fucked up shit.

That's actual pedophilia. We can have that discussion when we deal with the issue of teens with people who are slightly older than teens.

So nice strawman/red herring.

No, every one is suggesting the opposite... rape is harmful, what this woman did is a criminal act... she did not sleep with, she raped.

Ah, then 17 and 18 year old banging away in California is exactly as harmful as a violent sex attack on a small child by an adult or another child, etc.

makes sense. After all, as you're so fond of pointing out "a broken law is a broken law". The 18 year old 'raped' his/her 17 year old partner, and thus the 17 year old is exactly as much a victim as a woman who is drugged, or a small child who is raped by their parents.

A broken law is a broken law.... That's the statutes.

Ah, in other words. A laws a law, and a law is a law.

[–]MaxStout808 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

There's a trend towards seeing all sexuality with someone under 16 or 18 as inherently rape, and women get away with it like mad.

There is a truth in this: Women routinely receive suspended sentences (meaning they won't go to jail for fuckign a 13-17 year old unless they commit another crime, etc), or 1 year in prison, or 9 months, or at most 3 years.

A woman in the UK famously sexually molested a 3 year old (or were they older?) and got 5 years prison. The UK footballer who was 28 who met and had a 'consenting' sexual grope session with a 15 year old female got 6 years prison.

There's an anti-male sentiment that runs deeply through age of consent. It relies on marxism/oppressor vs oppressed/men vs women dynamic.

When two people fuck, we consider the male the aggressor or predator, the female the victim.

Therefore when an underage male fucks an overage female, there is a 'lack of malice' which is ASSUMED inherent to the female, as sex for females damages their value, sex for males raises their value. A male gains while a female loses.

That's why, historically, feminism and suffragettes fought hard for age of consent... only for protection of 'female virginity/sexuality'. They INTENDED both 16 and 60 year old males to get punished by the law for sex with an underage female.

Because we've lived in this culture so, so long, the notion that males are victims of older female sex predators is a LAUGHING matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMFdkVEgMCQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rUmuj_QD_4

In the former, he makes light of a situation which, were the genders reversed, would be seen as horrific comments. He'd be persona non-grata, lose his career and probably kill himself, if he made comedic comments about a 13-15 year old girl having sex with an older man.

In the latter, he mocks males who say they receive unwanted male sexual advances and possibly were raped because they didn't want to have sex but the woman had their way with him through drugging (alcohol), threats, or other types of coercion.

These two videos alone exemplify a common theme in our culture; males can't be victims of sexuality, and females can't be perpetrators.

By starting off with the comment "She gave 4 boys the night of their lives", I immediately drew reactionary ire from the SJW groups of this sub. They're more like MRA-reverseSJW types, but essentially they see all sexuality below age of consent as inherently pedophilic (although it isn't), and they see all sexual activity with someone below the age of consent as Rape (by appealing to authority on the part of law vis a vis statutory rape).

They are unwilling to take a stance that perhaps in many instances it is not harmful and the two participants do enjoy it. They also ignore the fact that sexual abuse and rape can come from age peers as well as older OR YOUNGER individuals, depending on the circumstances. The most embarrassing thing a person could do is get raped by a younger person, since it breaks all preconceptions.

An older man drugged and raped by a teen girl (as was done in the bible at God's bidding to.. was it Job? By his own daughters no less) would be something an older man would have to take to his grave rather than try to get "justice", in whatever form that is, because of our culture.

I'm trying to take a Moderate position. That age is largely irrelevant to sexual abuse and sexual activity. After all, we want sex activity decriminalized between two 15 year olds because we consider it massively unfair that they go to prison and are branded as a sex predator for life, with all the dehumanizing that entails. We are perfectly fine doing that to someone who has sex with a willing teen, however, if they're "too old", and just how old is "too old" is a matter of opinion, as if a chronologically older penis or vagina inherently causes a traumatic event compared to "age peer" genitalia.

Once we get to that argument, the rhetoric will resort to "power dynamic" among other "self evident truths", to suggest that it's inherently rape or harm despite a lack of "mens rea".

In fact, the law supports this by putting underage males in the slammer for slamming ass with underage females. Though lacking "mens rea", and being underage, they go to jail for sex because they technically violated age of consent law.

These people are upset over this but see no hypocrisy in suggesting that a person can consent to one individual but not another.

Power Dynamic, the rhetoric most used by this point of the argument, is coming Full Circle to the inherent arguments feminists made for age of consent in the 1860's; males are oppressors and females are oppressed.

However they are converting it to "older people are oppressors and younger people are oppressed", because they want it to be gender neutral law.

They want a female to get 20 years prison for sex with underage students, same as a man.

They want males who are victims of rape and molestation to be taken seriously.

They are willing to deny possible agency of teenage males and their sexuality to achieve the end result that females who are over 18 get hammered as hard by the law as males, because they hate double standards in law. I do, too. I don't think that punishing people for being together willingly is a good use of law though.

They consider all sexual relations with someone underage inherently molesting or rape (just because the law says so, regardless of people's feelings) but then suggest that two underage people should not be held legally accountable, so apparently you'd have a free pass to commit molesting or rape by making it legal, or is it that those terms only matter because laws exist? If the latter, then it would presume the removal of rape law means rape no longer exists. It would presume that lowering of age of consent, say to 8, would mean that 9 year olds are no longer victimized by sexual activity.

I deny both those logical consequences of the argument that "its rape because the law says so". It'd still be rape even if it were legal, because its an act. It'd still be victimizing a 9 year old even if it were legal.

Maybe their thinking is more complex, maybe it an OR statement. If someone is nonconsenting OR underage, they're a victim of rape. But then if we remove underage by removing AoC, we're still left with the flaw of this statement. Clearly rape and molesting are acts against someone's will. Clearly if we hold that people under a certain age are incapable of consenting, they should be incapable of consenting to "age peers" and be considered a victim, and it would up to the legal system to determine the "aggressor/inciter to commit sexual acts" in the relationship.

They are inconsistent in my eyes, but they do have a consistency of their own; they want women to be seen as sexual predators if they break any laws. They might be doing it out of spite and resentment, they might be doing it because its easier to condemn women equally to men than suggest that the laws are inherently unjust to men as they are written.

[–]MaxStout808 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Punishing women more does not bring justice to men that are prosecuted over-zealously in a court of public opinion and a court of law. I personally feel that the laws governing statutory rape go too far (and I appreciate your in-depth Analysis of the finer points of the admittedly complex laws), as well as the laws regarding "implied consent." I doubt many here would argue against that. I think it is easy to get carried away trying to throw the book at women who are in situations when, if the gender roles were reversed, most MRAs would be more willing to temper their zeal for justice.

I, like most of the people in the sub (I hope) are fighting for, and hoping for a brighter future for both genders. To me, that definitely means less government intervention and consensual sex acts, as you seem to be saying. My first comment was merely that you seem to raise very valid points, which seem to support the general goal of what I feel men's rights is about, hence my confusion about the downvotes you were receiving.

Edit-spelling (mobile >.<)

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nudify -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nudify 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nudify 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nudify 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GreekTacos -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]USApwnKorean -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]EgoandDesire -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Cops: Female instructor, 25, slept with 4 teen boy students, 2 in same night - Story
Author	TheAndredal
Upvotes	215
Comments	55
Date	September 27, 2017 9:09 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/72vcnr/cops_female_instructor_25_slept_with_4_teen_boy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cops-female-instructor-25-slept-with-4-teen-boy.1175227 https://theredarchive.com/post/1175227

Comments