[kara_hibee]

Huntton, on Feb 7 2008, 16:53, said:

Your bang on.

Personally I think all the 16 year old guys that grass there teachers in for sleeping with them should be strung up to. Jammie wee sods.

It would be a totally different story if a 16-year-old girl slept with a male teacher though....

[allym1877]

Huntton, on Feb 7 2008, 16:47, said:

Is the "Grooming, the Good Kind" Thread about

30 year old Female teachers, that go with there students.

I hate reading those stories in the paper cause you just think "What a lucky wee ba*tard"

Nice.

[kara_hibee]

Huntton, on Feb 7 2008, 16:55, said:

Damn right,

He is abusing his authority there.

What a lot of pish.

The female teacher is "abusing her authority" just as much.

[fraser_smfc]

centralparker, on Feb 7 2008, 16:50, said:

We do have something of a double standard here. 35-year-old woman sleeps with 16-year-old boy....cue plenty of jokes about him being a lucky lad, being shown the ropes by an older lady, nudge nudge wink wink.

Yet turn the situation around and the older bloke is invariably described as a predatory monster who has damaged an innocent young life.

You have a point centralparker. But it is different situations. It could be argued that boy, say 15, who shags his older female teacher knows exactly what he's doing and isn't being "groomed". This is very different to a 15 year old girl who is being complemented and being given gifts etc and thinks that this old sicko actually loves her. In this situation she is being taken advantage of and the boy isn't. It's completely different for boys and girls although I think everyone does see your point and it is a valid one.

[the_saints_are_coming]

Huntton, on Feb 7 2008, 16:55, said:

Damn right,

He is abusing his authority there.

[Supras]

This was in the metro yesterday, was going to post it, ah well

[Dalai_Lama]

centralparker, on Feb 7 2008, 16:17, said:

Mind you, 19 and 14 isn't a big age difference, both teenagers. Illegal yes, but hardly paedophilia. Would have been a different matter if he was 35+

I havent seen any pictures of the girl, but i doubt he was a paedophile. A paedophile is by definition someone who is sexually attracted to someone who is pre-pubescent i.e a child. I am guessing she was beyond this stage. Of course this doesnt change the fact it is illegal and quite possibly immoral.

[centralparker]

Dalai_Lama, on Feb 7 2008, 17:38, said:

I havent seen any pictures of the girl, but i doubt he was a paedophile. A paedophile is by definition someone who is sexually attracted to someone who is pre-pubescent i.e a child. I am guessing she was beyond this stage. Of course this doesnt change the fact it is illegal and quite possibly immoral.

Also, she was prepared to film them having sex in a public loo. An unsavoury incident but not one I would class as paedophilia. Just two teenage kids at it.

[F_T_Y]

Lucky Man.

[Supras]

F_T_Y, on Feb 7 2008, 17:43, said:

Lucky Man.

Even now he can have jail sex

[bopolopoluss1]

I honestly dont see the problem at all with this. The law is only a piece of paper and she clearly knew what she was doing. He's still within the bounds of the formula anyway, and aslong as he did the peach test then its fair game. I went out with a 14 year old when i was 17 and she was a finey.

[Swampy]

centralparker, on Feb 7 2008, 16:17, said:

Mind you, 19 and 14 isn't a big age difference, both teenagers. Illegal yes, but hardly paedophilia. Would have been a different matter if he was 35+

I think paedophilia depends more on the age of the object of attraction than it does the attractee.

[bopolopoluss1]

Not really, a guy at 19 doesent see a 14 year old girl as being that much younger than him. I'm very nearly 19 and know many 14/15 year olds that seem way older than they are. Some people just age more quickly than others. The law is outrageous.

[Mrs M]

bopolopoluss1, on Feb 7 2008, 20:30, said:

Not really, a guy at 19 doesent see a 14 year old girl as being that much younger than him. I'm very nearly 19 and know many 14/15 year olds that seem way older than they are. Some people just age more quickly than others. The law is outrageous.

Not really, no. The law is there to protect those that are not mature enough to make a reasoned decision, despite whether or not they think they are. A child of 16 may seem to be mature, but land them with a baby that they didn't think through properly and thought they could handle, and see how grown up they are then. Give them an STI that they didn't think would happen to them, see how much they like that. And yes, you can give them all the sexual health education that you like, but it doesn't mean that they're going to take any notice of it when they're in the middle of that situation.

I don't believe that the majority of 16 year olds are actually capable of thinking that far ahead, weighing a situation up and coming to a reasonable decision, let alone a younger person. I remember being 14 or 15 and asking to go places at night with my friends and being told that I couldn't. Why? Because my parents didn't want me to get into a situation that I couldn't handle. My argument was "Oh, that'll never happen to me!". Young teenagers really can be that naiive.

[bopolopoluss1]

Arent you in your thirties and engaged to a teenager though? I'm not having a dig, just cant see your logic.

[Mrs M]

bopolopoluss1, on Feb 7 2008, 21:19, said:

Arent you in your thirties and engaged to a teenager though? I'm not having a dig, just cant see your logic.

No.

[Diamond Gord]

Is it morally wrong for someone to have sex with a person one day before their 16th birthday?
Is it morally acceptable the following day?
There are people who are still not mentally mature enough to make decisions about having sex when they are 18 or 19 and some who are mature enough before they are 16.
People will act on what they believe is morally correct over what the law says.

[bopolopoluss1]

Completely agree.

[Supras]

Any older women want to groom me

This post has been edited by Supras: 07 February 2008 - 21:44

[Mrs M]

Diamond Gord, on Feb 7 2008, 21:37, said:

Is it morally wrong for someone to have sex with a person one day before their 16th birthday?
Is it morally acceptable the following day?
There are people who are still not mentally mature enough to make decisions about having sex when they are 18 or 19 and some who are mature enough before they are 16.
People will act on what they believe is morally correct over what the law says.

bopolopoluss1, on Feb 7 2008, 21:42, said:

Completely agree.

While I can't disagree with either of you, on the basis that you're very much correct, there is a flaw to that. The law needs to be there to protect people, and for it to stand, there needs to be a set age of consent. I couldn't tell you how the conclusion was reached that 16 should be that age, but it is. Maturity is subjective, as has been stated previously on other threads, but the law can't really make allowances for this because it would be impossible for the authorities to judge.

As things are right here and now, this is the law, and this is what must be adhered to. Everyone knows what the law is, and everyone knows what can happen should you break it. Claiming that the underage person involved was mature enough isn't going to wash with the authorities and ignorance isn't a defence.

[kara_hibee]

Mrs Wee, on Feb 7 2008, 20:53, said:

Not really, no. The law is there to protect those that are not mature enough to make a reasoned decision, despite whether or not they think they are. A child of 16 may seem to be mature, but land them with a baby that they didn't think through properly and thought they could handle, and see how grown up they are then. Give them an STI that they didn't think would happen to them, see how much they like that. And yes, you can give them all the sexual health education that you like, but it doesn't mean that they're going to take any notice of it when they're in the middle of that situation.

I don't believe that the majority of 16 year olds are actually capable of thinking that far ahead, weighing a situation up and coming to a reasonable decision, let alone a younger person. I remember being 14 or 15 and asking to go places at night with my friends and being told that I couldn't. Why? Because my parents didn't want me to get into a situation that I couldn't handle. My argument was "Oh, that'll never happen to me!". Young teenagers really can be that naiive.

lol! I've just passed that stage, and now convinced my mum and dad that I'm sensible enough to make my own judgement, on where I should and shouldn't go....and yet I still go to Easter Road... ...but yea as long as I have my phone with me there's not really an issue. However, one place i'm not allowed to go is bloody ibrox! I was going to get the train through with my friend to the replay. But i'm not allowed! That's ridiculous!!! There again, I'm allowed to go if I go on a supporters bus?! Strange people my mum and dad are !

This post has been edited by kara_hibee: 07 February 2008 - 21:50

[Mrs M]

kara_hibee, on Feb 7 2008, 21:49, said:

lol! I've just passed that stage, and now convinced my mum and dad that I'm sensible enough to make my own judgement, on where I should and shouldn't go....and yet I still go to Easter Road... ...but yea as long as I have my phone with me there's not really an issue. However, one place i'm not allowed to go is bloody ibrox! I was going to get the train through with my friend to the replay. But i'm not allowed! That's ridiculous!!! There again, I'm allowed to go if I go on a supporters bus?! Strange people my mum and dad are !

No one had mobile phones when I was 15.

Well, they did, but they were like breezeblocks and not particularly "mobile".

[kara_hibee]

Mrs Wee, on Feb 7 2008, 21:51, said:

No one had mobile phones when I was 15.

Well, they did, but they were like breezeblocks and not particularly "mobile".

lol
true! so very true!