[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

4th degree rape is statutory rape

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/5/II/770

To say she raped him sounds wierd

[Liam-]

It was statutory rape, it might not have been physical, forceful rape, but it was still rape.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

To say she raped him sounds wierd

sex with a minor, consenting or not, is always called rape though because they're not old enough to consent, that's not a new thing

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

sex with a minor, consenting or not, is always called rape though because they're not old enough to consent, that's not a new thing

It's so messed up though, there's such a gulf of difference between someone slightly underage willingly having sex with an adult and it all coming out and the adult getting prosecuted over it and a violent sex crime where someone is abused against their will and left with physical and emotional scars.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Z

It's so messed up though, there's such a gulf of difference between someone slightly underage willingly having sex with an adult and it all coming out and the adult getting prosecuted over it and a violent sex crime where someone is abused against their will and left with physical and emotional scars.

Well there has to be a line drawn somewhere I guess and it does have a different term to rape - Statutory rape. It should be case by case though, I mean there's a world of difference between say a 15 year old having sex with their 18 year old boyfriend/girlfriend and a 15 year old, like this one having sex with a 40 something year old who really should know better etc

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Blah blah blah

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Z

It's so messed up though, there's such a gulf of difference between someone slightly underage willingly having sex with an adult and it all coming out and the adult getting prosecuted over it and a violent sex crime where someone is abused against their will and left with physical and emotional scars.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well there has to be a line drawn somewhere I guess and it does have a different term to rape - Statutory rape. It should be case by case though, I mean there's a world of difference between say a 15 year old having sex with their 18 year old boyfriend/girlfriend and a 15 year old, like this one having sex with a 40 something year old who really should know better etc

I can see both sides here really. On one hand, it clearly is a crime and an underage person (under 16 anyway, as it is in the UK) I genuinely don't think can be considered capable of consenting to sex with a much older adult, so I don't think "willingness" comes into it.

However, I personally think that the severity of "full blown" rape with physical force or drugging involved means that it should have its own, completely distinct, term. "Rape" should be a powerful word as soon as you hear it, you shouldn't have to ask "Well hold on, what SORT of rape?". So yeah I think there is a good case for "statutory rape" being given another title. It doesn't mean lessening the severity of the crime or any punishments; just creating a bigger distinction... to reflect the violence of a forceful rape.

[Tom4784]

If she knew he was 15 then she deserves to be prosecuted.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I can see both sides here really. On one hand, it clearly is a crime and an underage person (under 16 anyway, as it is in the UK) I genuinely don't think can be considered capable of consenting to sex with a much older adult, so I don't think "willingness" comes into it.

However, I personally think that the severity of "full blown" rape with physical force or drugging involved means that it should have its own, completely distinct, term. "Rape" should be a powerful word as soon as you hear it, you shouldn't have to ask "Well hold on, what SORT of rape?". So yeah I think there is a good case for "statutory rape" being given another title. It doesn't mean lessening the severity of the crime or any punishments; just creating a bigger distinction... to reflect the violence of a forceful rape.

it makes sense though if the definition of rape is sex without consent and under age people aren't allowed to consent

[Nedusa]

Rape...??? really

No I don't think so, the teacher in question looks about 8-9 stone the 15 year old pupil probably quite a few stone heavier. So violent physical rape ...no not a chance

More like a sexually frustrated older woman seduces a young boy into sleeping with her, not that a 15 year boy when offered no strings attached sex would require much seducing.

So please stop throwing around the words rape and paedophile...this was just a case of a woman who crossed the line to fulfil her desires. She will pay heavily for this probably lose not only her job but her licence to teach plus the criminal conviction and all that comes with that.

But a Rapist............well did the young man resist or was he forced against his will..probably not

So a Rapist...........No

[Niamh.]

People are really not getting the definition of statutory rape here ..........

[Liam-]

By your case, she knowingly seduced an underaged boy, whether he was willing or not, that makes her a pedophile, if she slept with him knowing he was underage.

And she is a rapist, not a violent one, but a statutory one, statutory rape is still rape because in the eyes of the law, people under 18 in America are not capable of making choices like that, so she raped him, simple as that.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Liam-

By your case, she knowingly seduced an underaged boy, whether he was willing or not, that makes her a pedophile, if she slept with him knowing he was underage.

And she is a rapist, not a violent one, but a statutory one, statutory rape is still rape because in the eyes of the law, people under 18 in America are not capable of making choices like that, so she raped him, simple as that.

Very Well Put Liam

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

By your case, she knowingly seduced an underaged boy, whether he was willing or not, that makes her a pedophile, if she slept with him knowing he was underage.

And she is a rapist, not a violent one, but a statutory one, statutory rape is still rape because in the eyes of the law, people under 18 in America are not capable of making choices like that, so she raped him, simple as that.

Exactly.

I don't get how people are claiming it wasn't rape when that's the legal term for it. It's like saying stealing a packet of crisps from a shop isn't really stealing because it's not as bad as armed bank robbery

[Nedusa]

Look.........you can dress it up any way you want and label it as Rape statutory or otherwise, but the simple fact remains she had consensual sex with another person.

Just because the "law" says it is rape does not make it rape, marriage to minors is legal in some countries and whose to say our law is better than their law.

So taking a strictly moral position if the 15 yr old consented to have sex with this older woman then that is their business, and anyone sitting in judgement spouting the "law" saying it is rape is clearly deluded...

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Look.........you can dress it up any way you want and label it as Rape statutory or otherwise, but the simple fact remains she had consensual sex with another person.

Just because the "law" says it is rape does not make it rape, marriage to minors is legal in some countries and whose to say our law is better than their law.

So taking a strictly moral position if the 15 yr old consented to have sex with this older woman then that is their business, and anyone sitting in judgement spouting the "law" saying it is rape is clearly deluded...

So because marriage to someone young is legal in other countries that means every other country should turn a blind eye to illegal sexual activities? that's a worrying stance to take.

What she did was illegal, pure and simple, she's a pedophile who abused her status as an older person to rape a minor, it's as simple as that, the only deluded stance to take on this matter is the one that you're taking quite frankly.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Look.........you can dress it up any way you want and label it as Rape statutory or otherwise, but the simple fact remains she had consensual sex with another person.

Just because the "law" says it is rape does not make it rape, marriage to minors is legal in some countries and whose to say our law is better than their law.

So taking a strictly moral position if the 15 yr old consented to have sex with this older woman then that is their business, and anyone sitting in judgement spouting the "law" saying it is rape is clearly deluded...

I'm not dressing it up in any way at all, what I'm saying is what is a fact, you're the one dressing it up. I'm not labelling it as anything - the law is, because guess what? They're the ones that make the labels in order to decide what is and what isn't against the law. You may not agree that there should be a term called Statutory rape and that's your prerogative but you disagreeing with it doesn't make it disappear from existence.

A question for you, what if 50 year old wanted to have sex with a 12 year old and the 12 year old was up for it, would that be alright?

[empire]

peadophilia in the cheerleading world, seems to be a huge problem, male judges seem to give these women a huge amount of soft treatment, where female judges would give these women a very long jail term, in melbourne australia, a woman sexually abused a boy of 12, and gave birth to his baby, and his parents did not have a clue, how much has the media hushed up, on these cases,

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Liam-

By your case, she knowingly seduced an underaged boy, whether he was willing or not, that makes her a pedophile, if she slept with him knowing he was underage.

This isn't actually correct, she is not a paedophile, there is a distinct difference in law between statutory rape and child molestation...

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I'm not dressing it up in any way at all, what I'm saying is what is a fact, you're the one dressing it up. I'm not labelling it as anything - the law is, because guess what? They're the ones that make the labels in order to decide what is and what isn't against the law. You may not agree that there should be a term called Statutory rape and that's your prerogative but you disagreeing with it doesn't make it disappear from existence.

A question for you, what if 50 year old wanted to have sex with a 12 year old and the 12 year old was up for it, would that be alright?

If they both wanted to, it shouldn't be called rape. No one's denying she committed a crime according to the laws of the land; but there are cultures where the definition of man/woman hinges on whether someone's hit puberty or not and not just over an arbitrary age decided upon for no particular reason. Why can someone get married and leave school at 16 but not vote or drive a car or see certain films in the cinema etc etc etc etc etc............. my earlier post in this thread was just discussing the term rape, not the actual case; as with this post really. Rape should mean the violent crime. Statutory rape should be called something that doesn't have rape in the name - statutory molestation, maybe, I dunno.

[the truth]

I cant believe some posters are condoning an adult raping a minor? sick