Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Teacher to Marry former student
- Thread starter virividox
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Chappers: What do you consider to be the ideal age of consent? Do you have an age in mind based on your own experiences or on empirical data? Alternatively, are you suggesting that young people suddenly become capable of consenting to sexual activity only once they reach the age of 12 in Spain, 13 in South Korea, 14 in Canada, 15 in France, or 16 in the UK? That is to say, are you simply relying on the age of consent in one's locale as a basis for your belief that what transpired should be considered as sexual abuse?
The argument here is whether or not some young teenagers are capable of informed consent when it comes to sexual relationships. You make a blanket assertion that "13 year-olds are not mature enough to comprehend these situations" and on that basis, you adjudge that the relationship constitutes sexual abuse on the part of the older party. I disagree. I think that on some occasions, however rare, young teenagers are mature enough to make their own decisions.
Not everybody develops at the same rate, and there are some 13 year-olds, if only very few, that look, think and act like adults, just as there are some 16 year-olds that look, think and act like children. Most of us have met at least one extraordinary young teenager that was incredibly advanced and intelligent for his or her age. If a teenager displays excellent logic and reasoning skills and the ability to abstract, then the likelihood is that they would be able to make a balanced and informed decision if faced with the possibility of a sexual relationship. Couple this with physical maturity and you have an adult in all but age. Conversely, there are many people of 17, 18, etc. who are clearly unable to appreciate the possible consequences of their actions.
The age of consent is a social construct, and is intended as a protective measure. Its important to recognise that teenagers don't suddenly become capable of informed consent at an arbitrary point in time pre-destined by legislators. More than likely, the physical and emotional maturity of teenagers falls across a normal distribution (bell curve), and yes, this would apply to both girls and boys.
I'm not legitimising child abuse as you seem to imply. Nor am I suggesting that we should abolish the age of consent legislation and have adults shack up with 13 year-olds en masse. I'm simply making the point that there will always be exceptions to the rule, and that all things considered, a consensual and loving sexual relationship doesnt represent a significant threat to the emotional welfare of a mature teenager. Obviously, the authorities can't turn a blind eye to potentially harmful relationships, but in cases such as this, state intervention seems to have done more harm than good.
The argument here is whether or not some young teenagers are capable of informed consent when it comes to sexual relationships. You make a blanket assertion that "13 year-olds are not mature enough to comprehend these situations" and on that basis, you adjudge that the relationship constitutes sexual abuse on the part of the older party. I disagree. I think that on some occasions, however rare, young teenagers are mature enough to make their own decisions.
Not everybody develops at the same rate, and there are some 13 year-olds, if only very few, that look, think and act like adults, just as there are some 16 year-olds that look, think and act like children. Most of us have met at least one extraordinary young teenager that was incredibly advanced and intelligent for his or her age. If a teenager displays excellent logic and reasoning skills and the ability to abstract, then the likelihood is that they would be able to make a balanced and informed decision if faced with the possibility of a sexual relationship. Couple this with physical maturity and you have an adult in all but age. Conversely, there are many people of 17, 18, etc. who are clearly unable to appreciate the possible consequences of their actions.
The age of consent is a social construct, and is intended as a protective measure. Its important to recognise that teenagers don't suddenly become capable of informed consent at an arbitrary point in time pre-destined by legislators. More than likely, the physical and emotional maturity of teenagers falls across a normal distribution (bell curve), and yes, this would apply to both girls and boys.
I'm not legitimising child abuse as you seem to imply. Nor am I suggesting that we should abolish the age of consent legislation and have adults shack up with 13 year-olds en masse. I'm simply making the point that there will always be exceptions to the rule, and that all things considered, a consensual and loving sexual relationship doesnt represent a significant threat to the emotional welfare of a mature teenager. Obviously, the authorities can't turn a blind eye to potentially harmful relationships, but in cases such as this, state intervention seems to have done more harm than good.
Yes I am 'simply' basing my belief on local, because different countries have different beliefs/culture and it is their decision on many issues and I can't judge that. Spain has apparently increased the age of consent to 13 but thats their business. We all have different laws covering different things I may not agree or understand but I should respect them.Brize said:
Brize said:
The argument was not about the few but the majority, maybe a few are capable but how would you write it into law. As I said an abuser could always say 'I thought it would end in marriage so it can't be abuse" All laws are the same - when you start writing in exceptions - loopholes are created and abuses of loopholes happen.
Brize said:
So how would you protect the vulnerable? Is it not better to protect all even if a few have to wait a bit.
Brize said:
She however willfully broke the law, and to almost become a celeb well thats not good.
I was trying to make the point that many previous comments seemed to suggest that because a boy was involved then it was somehow ok.
Thankyou for at least having a discussion on the matter. I apologise if I implied you condoned child abuse. I saw what it did to a close friend and it wasn't pretty.
Chappers said:
You're most welcome. Likewise.
With regard to varying ages of consent around the world, are you suggesting that what constitutes sexual abuse in one nation doesnt in another, solely on the basis of local law? This seems inconsistent to me. As an example, consider that an older woman in Spain coerces a 14 year-old boy into a sexual relationship. The boy is consenting in very loose terms, in that he is uncomfortable with the situation in his own mind, but feels powerless and so agrees to sleep with the woman. To my mind, this represents sexual abuse. By your logic however, it would not, as the relationship would be within the law (as I understand it). Conversely, if the boy was living in the UK and was not only wilfully consenting but had also initiated the relationship, you consider that he would be the victim of sexual abuse. I can't buy into that logic.
Sexual abuse of any kind surely represents the most nightmarish of sufferings in the realm of human experience. The feelings of anguish, guilt, helplessness, etc. that accompany sexual violation are a world away from what we are discussing here. To suggest that one can derive pleasure, happiness, love, etc. from sexual abuse is extremely problematic, for obvious reasons.
Statutory rape is a tricky area, and it's not generally a crime where the feelings of the 'victim' are taken into account. I would argue that in instances where the minor is a willing participant, statutory rape is seen more as a crime against society than a crime against an individual. The basis for prosecution in such instances is twofold. First, a social taboo exists when it comes to adults sleeping with minors, and most people are therefore unable to assess each case separately and objectively. As such, the defendant is considered to be a dangerous sex offender who should be removed from society, both as a precaution and a form of punishment. Second, and as you suggest, upholding the law sends a clear message to would-be sex offenders that sexual activity with a minor cannot be legitimised by any means, and will result in prosecution.
I have not suggested, and nor do I believe, that such laws should be abolished. I was merely pointing out that in this specific instance, the law seems to have done more harm than good. Having said that, I don't have any suggestions as to how the state could have realistically allowed this relationship to continue. I just feel rather sorry for the two people involved that they happened to fall into a situation that was socially and legally unacceptable.
Teenagers will invariably start to explore their sexuality once they become aware of their physical maturity. In most cases, the age of emotional readiness decided by legislators is at odds with physical readiness, and this has always been an issue. Many 13 year-olds initiate sexual relationships on a daily basis, but most of us aren't too concerned about that because the majority of teenagers experiment within their peer group. The moment they transcend the taboo of inter-generational sex however, it becomes problematic due to a perceived difference in relationship dynamics. I'm not saying that this isn't problematic, but just that as commentators, rather than legislators, we should attempt to consider the situation objectively instead of jumping to knee-jerk reactions.
It is rather unfortunate that this woman has become a celebrity, but it seems that she's being exploited by the media, who sensationalised the story in the first place. There may also be an issue with legal fees. If this is the case, a woman who is now all but unemployable would need to rake in as much cash as possible before she's old news. Also, don't forget that celebrities serve the public interest. Stories like this sell newspapers and boost television ratings. If the public weren't so interested in a quick self-esteem fix from a healthy dose of self-righteousness, she wouldn't have the opportunity to make any money.
Brize said:
Yes it seems inconsistent but maybe it's not. The culture of a country has a huge effect on all sorts of thing, I lived in Turkey for 5 years married to a Turkish woman (my view of the world was changed forever but still causes conflict in my mind sometimes). Countries have different laws for different reasons.
Brize said:
She was still in a position of authority and abused that and not only that she kept putting her middle finger up to the law (never a good idea).
I worked in a school (elementary - high school), students get crushes, some are attractive, but even students who are old enough should not be touched sexually. Why - because that position alone makes you very attractive and thus it is easy to abuse the trust and authority that you hold. No matter how experienced a student seems, the teacher (if they wanted) could manipulate the situation which is unfair. Teachers manipulate their students all the time eg. to get them interested in the curriculum, some use that skill to abuse the situation. I doubt in any country its acceptable for a teacher to engage in sexual relations with any student regardless of age.
Brize said:
You are right but life (including sex) is a swimming pool and if you don't know how to swim then it's not a good idea to jump in the deep end even if you think it's a good idea. Their own experimentation (in peer group) is the shallow end to give the experience to eventually swim the olympic pool.
Brize said:
Can't ague with that. My own experience with the media which only involved my views on smoking taught me to keep away from them, however some people have no choice.
Ummm...I thought I should add some extra info about my situation so people don't think I'm some sort of abusive type.Squire said:
Age difference: 1 year
Met: university I taught at
Started dating after she graduated. Got married 9 months later (5 years ago next week). Have 2 beautiful children (3 and 18 months) and absolutely no regrets.
Boring, eh?
Squire
Chappers: Im not denying that cultural relativism plays a part in this discussion. Of course, I would agree with you that laws pertaining to sexual abuse etc. are culturally and socially situated. However, had you engaged with my example, I think you would have seen the inconsistencies inherent in relying solely on local laws to make a moral judgement. The law, by its nature, is in a constant state of reform. The mere fact that legislation exists doesn't necessarily make it morally just. On occasion, cases are heard before a court that have no real precedent, and the law may eventually be changed as a result. Perhaps the most pertinent example of this is husband-wife rape. Until very recently, it was almost impossible to secure a rape conviction when the accuser and defendant were husband and wife, on the basis of an archaic ruling to the same effect. As the result of a test case, The House of Lords eventually decided that the ruling should no longer form a part of the law.
My point here is simply that the law cannot be considered as a reliable arbiter of sexual abuse in every single case. As you point out, sexual abuse results in emotional trauma, hence the reason for its illegality. I would argue that the presence or otherwise of emotional trauma can only be decided at an individual level. If a person feels happy and content and is able to assert his or her autonomy within the relationship, I wouldn't consider that person to have been sexually abused, even if the law decides otherwise. Conversely, consider a situation where a woman is manipulated and pressured into sex against her will by her boyfriend. She is aware that her autonomy will not be respected so decides not to protest, even though she doesn't wish to engage in sexual activity. In this case, I would consider the woman to have been sexually abused. Of course, in such instances, there is no realistic legal provision for prosecution.
I wouldn't disagree with you that those in a position of authority can seem attractive for that very reason, and easily become the target of romantic and sexual interest. Further, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that some teachers will attempt to abuse their position of trust. Again though, I am merely saying that on occasion, however rare, it is conceivable that a relationship can be initiated and conducted on an equal footing. This may be outside of our personal reference and experience, but it is conceivable nonetheless. Further, the idea that those in a position of authority are always advantaged by the balance of power is a falsehood. Only a few of weeks ago, a 15 year-old boy was charged with raping his teacher in a central London school. This has several implications in the context of our discussion. On the basis of your previous assertion, do you consider that this boy can't be held responsible for his actions? He's under the age of consent, so is he therefore "not mature enough to comprehend" what he has done wrong? If he is considered mature enough to comprehend his actions and therefore to prosecute, I'm curious as to your moral stance had the situation been different. For example, had that boy attempted to initiate a sexual relationship with a teacher and found his feelings reciprocated, would you consider him to be the victim of sexual abuse?
Your swimming pool analogy is an interesting one, but I can't agree. The mechanics of sexual activity are no different whether teenagers engage within or without of their peer group. Of course, the dynamic of the relationship is very likely to be different in the latter case, however, this is only a generalisation. Subjectively, it seems to me that a relationship with an older woman has as many advantages as disadvantages. Certainly, I would far rather have spent my formative years in the company of an experienced older woman, than with various girls of my own age. Awkward fumblings behind the bike sheds or in the alley behind the cinema isn't an ideal way to explore one's burgeoning sexuality.
My point here is simply that the law cannot be considered as a reliable arbiter of sexual abuse in every single case. As you point out, sexual abuse results in emotional trauma, hence the reason for its illegality. I would argue that the presence or otherwise of emotional trauma can only be decided at an individual level. If a person feels happy and content and is able to assert his or her autonomy within the relationship, I wouldn't consider that person to have been sexually abused, even if the law decides otherwise. Conversely, consider a situation where a woman is manipulated and pressured into sex against her will by her boyfriend. She is aware that her autonomy will not be respected so decides not to protest, even though she doesn't wish to engage in sexual activity. In this case, I would consider the woman to have been sexually abused. Of course, in such instances, there is no realistic legal provision for prosecution.
I wouldn't disagree with you that those in a position of authority can seem attractive for that very reason, and easily become the target of romantic and sexual interest. Further, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that some teachers will attempt to abuse their position of trust. Again though, I am merely saying that on occasion, however rare, it is conceivable that a relationship can be initiated and conducted on an equal footing. This may be outside of our personal reference and experience, but it is conceivable nonetheless. Further, the idea that those in a position of authority are always advantaged by the balance of power is a falsehood. Only a few of weeks ago, a 15 year-old boy was charged with raping his teacher in a central London school. This has several implications in the context of our discussion. On the basis of your previous assertion, do you consider that this boy can't be held responsible for his actions? He's under the age of consent, so is he therefore "not mature enough to comprehend" what he has done wrong? If he is considered mature enough to comprehend his actions and therefore to prosecute, I'm curious as to your moral stance had the situation been different. For example, had that boy attempted to initiate a sexual relationship with a teacher and found his feelings reciprocated, would you consider him to be the victim of sexual abuse?
Your swimming pool analogy is an interesting one, but I can't agree. The mechanics of sexual activity are no different whether teenagers engage within or without of their peer group. Of course, the dynamic of the relationship is very likely to be different in the latter case, however, this is only a generalisation. Subjectively, it seems to me that a relationship with an older woman has as many advantages as disadvantages. Certainly, I would far rather have spent my formative years in the company of an experienced older woman, than with various girls of my own age. Awkward fumblings behind the bike sheds or in the alley behind the cinema isn't an ideal way to explore one's burgeoning sexuality.
Squire said:
Squire, you're clearly a very naughty man.
In all seriousness, there's a grand tradition of academic staff having relationships with students in British universities. This isn't generally considered to be a problem, so long as the relationship is declared to the university directorate. This protects against the student gaining an unfair advantage, as their papers and exams have to be graded by other staff. There really isn't an awful lot that you can do when two adults wish to have a relationship.
Hmm...I must crack on with that PhD application.
Brize said:
We teach right and wrong to children from an early age and therefore I cannot see what the age of consent has to do with a child doing wrong. All people no matter what their age can do wrong and receive punishment for that. Some punishments come from the law of the land others from say your parents. The boy is an abuser and should be punished. His victim is still a victim. If his attack had happen to another child he would still be guilty because he has done wrong. This has nothing to do with the age of consent.
Brize said:
In a way here you are proving my point about it being a boy with an older woman. I'm guessing you're in your mid-twenties so soon you may be thinking about children. Now ask yourself 'If I had a daughter aged 13, would I be happy in any circumstance with her gaining her sexual experience with her teacher round the back of the bike shed?'
Chappers said:
It was you that made a connection between being able to comprehend one's actions and the age of consent. Yes, of course his victim is still a victim. That wasn't the question I asked. I specifically asked whether you would consider this boy a victim of sexual abuse had he embarked on a consensual relationship with one of his teachers. You say this boy is an abuser and I agree with that statement. However, do you not consider it strange that a boy of 15 could theoretically be sent to prison for sexual abuse, yet also be considered as a victim of sexual abuse by the same court when in both cases he was acting on his own volition? To my mind, that seems inconsistent.
Chappers said:
No, I'm not proving your point at all. I'm simply speaking from a male perspective. Understandably, no parent likes to think of his or her child having sex, but it happens nonetheless. I don't consider that my thoughts on this matter are gendered, even though my argument may be. When I was a teenager, I knew a fair few mature 14 year-old girls that were involved in relationships with significantly older men. Yes, the idea of that does make me feel uncomfortable now, just as it probably did then. However, my visceral reaction has more to do with exposure to gendered discourses pertaining to such matters than anything else. Logically and objectively, I can conceive of a situation where a mature teenage girl in her early teens could enjoy a healthy relationship with an older man. Again, I don't imagine this to be a very common situation and nor am I suggesting that we change the law, but I can conceive of it nonetheless.
Brize said:
As a victim, a person (whatever their age) has done nothing wrong, however as an assailant the opposite is true. Legal age for being able to accept responsibility and the age of consent are not the same. It is therefore not possible to compare the examples you gave.
I was merely asking you to consider the other side of the coin and commented that 'in a way you proved my point' (not totally). I asked how you might feel as a person who in a few years time may become a parent. Your gut reaction was as a male to a male situation (or how you see it) what if you had a daughter and .... well you know the rest of my question - but the 31 yr old maths teacher is giving extra lessons. Of course I'm looking for a knee jerk reaction but that is my problem with the law - we see it differently for different sexes.Brize said:
The age of consent is based on the general idea that a person under the age of x isn't capable of making an informed descision about having sex. That law is designed to protect them (although it may not be perfect). Another law that says they can be criminally responsible again may not be perfect but limits should be set. These laws are designed to protect society. Ok another example - your 9 year old child kills the next door neighbours cat for fun, that child wouldn't be criminally responsible. However I guess you would deal with the child so that it knows it did wrong and take some responsibility and punishment. 14 yr olds can drink alcohol on resturants. In the Jamie Bulger case the law evolved because of his murder, new limits were set. 10 year olds can be criminally responsible (not perfect but evolving). I do understand your argument but one law is to protect, one is to punish and therefore should be treated differently. This may seem inconsistent but no laws are perfect and as we have both said - they are evolving to iron out the wrinkles.Brize said:
Some of your comments so far have included personal and emotional opinions, are you not being subjective? Yes I was asking for an emotional response but laws are shaped by many factors and one of them is emotion.Brize said:
You guys really have a fascinating discussion going here. But I'm afraid that after reading the article, I'm going to have to come down on Brize's side. Here's the bit I found most relevant:Chappers said:
Soon after that, she gave in to a single kiss, and shortly after, the two were sleeping together.from article said:
Now, assuming that LeTourneau is not painting a self-serving picture of the situation to try and avoid responsibility, it sounds to me like Fualaau was fully consenting. From the dramatic, "forbidden fruit of unstoppable romance!" way she's portraying things, it also seems the two of them were on the same emotional level--and not because Fualaau was that advanced for his age.
I'd say LeTourneau simply lacked emotional maturity to put a stop to the "art lessons" when he made his declaration--she didn't stop herself from putting her own need for affection and healing (from her divorce) ahead of the law and generally accepted morality, which was her responsibility as an adult. If there was abuse there, that's it in a nutshell, but it's just not on the same level as the abuse that damages another for the sake of power. People make mistakes like LeTourneau's when they're in love, getting themselves into things they know aren't good for them, just not usually with 13-year-olds. And I do believe that she and Fualaau must have been geniuinely in love, if he is still with her.
As things stand now, she's paid for her failure of judgement, and served her sentence fairly. He's stuck by her through this whole mess, and is now a full adult. Now that they're both consenting adults, they can do whatever they like, and it's none of society's business....though I bet it makes for one helluva "How did you two meet?" story.
Chappers said:
Again, I'm well aware of the law and its purpose. I specifically asked whether you consider it illogical that minors can be deprived of their liberty on the basis that they should be held responsible for their actions, yet aren't legally allowed to make decisions pertaining to their own minds and bodies. To me, this seems anomalous. All well and good if you disagree, but please provide a counter-argument.
Chappers said:
Yes, of course: all utterances are subjective by definition. My point here is that you were making a direct appeal to my subjectivity, rather than trying to engage me on a logical basis. I could oblige you by stating that I wouldn't be happy for my fictional 13 year-old daughter to sleep with an older man, but it still wouldn't constitute a cogent argument.
rueyeet said:
Yep, I think that's the issue here, and it's one that we've lost sight of as our discussion has progressed. Clearly, this was a very unfortunate situation, but there's no public evidence to indicate that what transpired should be construed as sexual abuse. There's a marked difference between statutory rape and sexual abuse, for good reason. A failure to make this distinction would have serious implications for those who genuinely have suffered sexual abuse. In any event, there's a grey area here, and it's certainly something that warrants discussion.
Brize said:
My argument is that the law (age of consent) is there to protect them, not stop them making decisions regarding their own minds and bodies. Its side effect may be that some children who are mature enough to make these decisions have to wait, but its purpose remains to protect. It is therefore not inconsistant with a law that is designed to punish. If we saw cases of 13/14 years who had had sex together being brought to court then I would agree with you because then they would be restricted in the manner that you talk about. (at this point I guess some histories of such cases will appear). As I am at work maybe it is not a good idea to google such information just in case it was misunderstood.
Brize said:
My point has always been that society seem to have a different attitude towards the sex of the involved parties. You may make no perceived distinction between the sexes but I think society does. Even you have a feeling on the matter, your comments as a male gaining experience reflect that and so I think its fair to ask you to consider another possibility, which you have. You say the law makes no distinction based on gender yet 'LeTourneau served six months in jail. The rest of the 7 1/2 years would be suspended as long as she agreed to attend psychiatric counseling and stay away from Fualaau' can you imagine a man who had committed statutory only serving 6 months. This is inconsistent.
Chappers said:
That's a fair point, but if you concede that some teenagers are mature enough to engage in sexual activity, do you also concede that it would be erroneous to consider those same teenagers as victims of sexual abuse if they were acting on their own volition, regardless of the law? If so, is it not conceivable that the boy who slept with his teacher could be the victim of an unfortunate situation, rather than of sexual abuse?
Chappers said:
I can't argue with that. Society, certainly in the west, has an unhealthy attitude toward the sexuality of children, especially girls. We reserve a special kind of loathing for paedophiles, yet we're happy to condone pictures of semi-naked childlike young women (wearing pigtails; sucking popsicles, etc.) on page 3 of The Sun newspaper. We're also happy to accept the way in which young girls are collectively sexualised for commercial gain by record labels, clothing brands and cosmetics companies, yet consider it unacceptable for those same young girls to express their sexuality, or for men to take a sexual interest. This hypocrisy sends out mixed-messages to children and adults alike.
Chappers said:
Yes, there is public evidence to indicate that what transpired was consensual. Read the original article or the extract posted by rueyeet for more information. Of course, we can never be sure of anything. That much is true.
In any event, you've kindly proved my point:
Chappers said:
If we don't know either way, on what basis do you make your assertion that "she sexually abused a child"?
This is the problem with child sex abuse - many children consent - only much later do they realise they didn't. Thats for the various legal/social systems to decide.Brize said:
Brize said:
When I replied 'How do we know either way?' it was in answer to your statement that 'there's no public evidence to indicate that what transpired should be construed as sexual abuse'. You cannot make the argument that she didn't commit sexual abuse on the basis of evidence that you don't have. So we cannot know, but again that's the job of the courts/jury. Based on evidence that we don't have but the jury presumably did, the system decided she was guilty.
rueyeet said:
Welcome to the debate. Sorry but you are assuming things in your argument. You assume but don't know. The fact that they are together now is really a hindsight thing.
My real point in being in this dicussion has been the attitude of society and the law regarding the sex of the persons involved. Would you make the same comments about LeTourneau paying for her failure etc if it had been a man having a sexual relationship with a 13 yr old girl and getting her pregnant.