Posted on 08/02/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by laotzu
San Antonio police Saturday night arrested a 38 year old teacher in the Northside ISD and charged her with engaging in sexual activity with a 12 year old boy.
An arrest warrant obtained by 1200 WOAI news claims that Lucinda Caldwell, 38, is a fifth grade teacher at Cable Elementary School on Pinn Road.
The affidavit claims Caldwell picked up the boy at his far west side home Friday night and drove to a hotel, where the sexual contact allegedly took place.
But when she tried to return the youngster to his home early Saturday, his dad was waiting, so she drove off and drove into Medina County, where police there arrested her and rescued the boy.
It is not known whether the boy is a student of Caldwell's, or whether he attends Cable Elementary School. Caldwell is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. A spokesman at the Bexar County Jail said he didn't have information on whether bond had been set.
Officials didn't say how the contact between the boy and the teacher was made, because school is not in session, or whether the two had some sort of ongoing relationship.
GG, I am a simple person. I do not understand your point; either you are being too obtuse for an uneducated person such as myself, or you are using word jugglery on purpose. I have no wish to get into strife or argument, nor am I trying to evade or avoid the issue.
My simple point is that illicit sex is harmful to all involved. And not all equally across the board - some is more harmful, some less. But without any doubt at all, a 38 year old teacher whether male or female, having sex with a 12 year old student, is vile, disgusting, and harmful to the child.
This is not a theory, a hypothesis and needs no statistics or studies to prove that it is truth.
Moral absolutes are true whether one decides to believe they are true or not. Reason and wisdom will show the open mind that they are true, as well. It’s not a matter of blind belief. True belief is not blind, as God in the heart reveals truth from within, in Sanskrit this is called vijnana, or realized truth.
A person can have “faith” in something which is not true. A person can have “faith” that the world is flat. A blind person can believe or have “faith” that there is no daylight.
But humans can know for certain truths that God can reveal to them from within, this is realized wisdom; enlightenment, if you will. In things large and small, truth can indeed be known. This is faith grown up into experienced wisdom. A person can have faith that if he eats, he will feel satisfaction. But only upon actually eating the feast, will he experience satiety.
So, my longwinded point is that there is not only no need for scientific verification of the fact that it is harmful to a 12 year old boy (or girl) to have sex with a 38 year old woman (or man), but the truth can be known by a superior method of verification. The truth can be understood by experience given from within.
And this truth is small and temporal, compared to other, greater truths that can be similarly known experientially.
Would not your phrase “this kind of abominable encounter” be best reserved for homosexual relations? As I remember Judeo-Christian theology and its influence on language, that term was used in the Scriptures by G*d to refer to male/male sex, not male/female sex.
Just a thought.
PS Does not your argument about not being able to demonstrate damage, but you claim it exists fall into the came logical difficulties as “I can’t demonstrate unicorns, but they exist - and we must have laws relating to unicorns”?
While pretending to be scientific, you use perjorative and emotion-filled terms like “guilt factory”.
I explained the difference between faith and realized wisdom, which you discount disimissively. Realizing from within is different from “faith”, and I explained how it is different.
The unverified premise, as you call it, is a moral absolute.
You are claiming that a child of 12 may not be harmed by sex with an adult.
You are, in essence, promoting pedophilia, and that sickens me.
Your pretense of reason and rationality is exposed.
You’re saying that pedophilia should have no legal penalty. Disgusting.
Your comment made light of the story. Made a joke of it. That’s sick.
These sad stories always expose those who would allow this kind of predatory behaviour by adults to continue. In fact, some on this thread encourage it.
Some guy walking with Henry from Bruce's grave: "It's sad, it makes you wanna cry."
Henry: "No, it's sad; it makes you wanna laugh"
And besides, I was mocking the bipolar idea.
You might as well have said “not guilty”. Isn’t that your usual comment on these threads?
Yeah, without a doubt I am juvenile moron on most of these threads. So why on earth would you pick one to call me out where I make two or three posts that clearly and explicity state that the woman’s behavior is sick? If you think half-wit behavior like mine is a problem here at FR, then this is the one thread where you should encourage me, not damn me. This is the one where I had no desire to say ‘not guilty,’ and repeatedly explained why.
Hi GG, you seem to be catching a lot of flack for posing your question, but I think it was reasonable and deserves some discussion.
Just briefly, I came across the following facts;
“Of young men surveyed in the Adverse
Childhood Experiences Study, 29.9% reported
physical abuse; 16% reported sexual abuse;
7.6% reported emotional abuse; and 11.5%
reported witnessing family violence before they
were 18 years old. 2
• Adult males who have experienced child sexual
abuse, physical abuse, and/or witnessed family
violence, are more likely to act out sexually,
have sexual identity confusion, and contract an
STI.3
One third of juvenile delinquents, 40% of sex
offenders, and 76% of serial rapists reported
experiencing child sexual abuse.
Childhood victimization has been linked to alcohol
and drug dependence in adolescents and adults, as
well as aggressive and antisocial behavior.”
Granted, these appear to be focusing on abuse, rather than involvement in a relationship, say, with a girlfriend, but I suspect some of the end results would be the same.
More sexual aggression, more risky behavior, and general lack of discernment and discretion in choosing sexual partners.
Hope that helps.
“You’re saying that pedophilia should have no legal penalty.”
Sorry, what you posted is NOT what I wrote.
Considering some people’s past personal (admitted) history, that’s hardly surprising.
Since I am becoming aware that emotion is clouding your argument, allow me to cut to the essence of your argument, which is embodied in your line: “You are claiming that a child of 12 may not be harmed by sex with an adult.”
As any parent can advise you, children tend to be what Sigmund Freud called “polymorphously perverse”. They are simply curious and somewhat exploratory regarding sex.
Were it not for this behavior predisposition, parents (and the theologically inclined) could rest far easier as children grew up. How the curiosity of the maturing child is dealt with is important. Judeo-Christianity found the answer in marriage. Liberalism in casual sex.
The “guilt factory” phrase is accurate, as both religious and Liberal use guilt to achieve what they wish.
The religious use guilt to reinforce the proven, traditional “sex only between male and female, and only within marriage”. Liberals use guilt to enforce a narrow age matching agenda. As one FReeper explained, “only one or two years of age difference until at least 25 years old”.
That the Liberals are on a seriously wrong path can be seen in the area of general age group decisions experienced by the public school and the home school student populations.
In public schools, age segregation is near absolute, with student friends rarely out of the grade of the individual studdent by more than a year. Home school children have a far wider range of social contacts in terms of age.
Perhaps is may be of interest that the home school students are far more socially advanced, and have fewer out of wedlock bastards, contract fewer diseases, etc.
Age of first sex in these disparate groups is unknown to me, but I’d guess the home schooled to be older, and to be far more discerning in their choices. I’d also assume (probably a safe guess) that their choices were more acceptable to their parents than what a public schooled student dragged home. Assuming the parents ever met the partner of their child.
Note that the above supports the old position of leaving the matter of sex to the parents and their child, rather than the state. The essential difference between thee and me is that I fear the state interfering with parental authority in this area.
As a believing Christian, you might consider the risks of allowing government into areas long considered to be the realm of parent, child, family, and faith.
In closing, ask yourself why you feel it necessary to accuse me of promoting pedophilia when I actually “promoted” the historic position of Judeo-Christianity, wherein the parents were the responsible party, not the state.
Under that system, the role of male and female was rather static, was not “interpreted” by the jurist of the day on a bench in a civil or criminal court of the state, and the parents role was not undercut by a swarm of bureaucrats.
Beware of allowing the state to take over the role of the parent, because the central belief of all totalitarian states is “The Children belong to the state!”
Under totalitarian government, instead of safety, the child, the family, and the society at large finds tyranny.
Jew and Christian believe the child belongs to the parents because the child was given to the parents by G*d.
Some children are overly sexually experimental, and some are subject to the vilest of abuse, even killed. BUT, government intervention has been demonstrated to be worse than the historic, Judeo-Christian way.
The HillaBeast was wrong. A village can’t raise a child.
Parents must.
Lastly, in response to your snarky “Your pretense of reason and rationality is exposed.”, consider that I rely on reason and rationality because they work.
Your belief in your “internally revealed wisdom” based position seems to have blinded you to the reality that allowing the state to intervene, make that totally usurp, the authority of the parents in the area of their child’s sex education/experiences is a trade off worth the destruction of parental authority.
I disagree.
So far, all I have read are answers not responsive to the question, with the exception of a private mail about an ex who had been in such a relationship and he felt bad about it. It was noted, upon discussion, that the male was from a Liberal Jewish urban family.Coming from a somewhat similar background, I can see why the anecdotal report was as it was. Guilt is, after all, something of a profession amongst some of my co-religionists.
So the child wasn't actually harmed by being sexually molested? The only real harm was caused by Jews inflicting guilt, which they would have inflicted with or without the sexual abuse anyway?
You've exposed a lot of ugliness within yourself on this thread. You should read through your comments, and attend to some much needed house cleaning.
Amen. The vulgarity is this teacher.
Being that this is my thread, I deem your pun pretty damn funny. Eskimo girls. Har!!
Ya mean Moses and Jesus were right about marriage!
Much of my skepticism regarding Liberalism and sex comes from knowing that we are paying for a swarm of government “intervenors” whose impact is far more deleterious than helpful, and prohibitively expensive.
Government can't successfully intervene in the area of family decisions like the role of sex, marriage, etc.
I tried to detail a bit of this in my previous post to little jeramiah. Perhaps you may be more able to read it than he was. It seems he felt somehow threatened or offended by my not accepting his views as absolute truths.
Whatever happened to the people who accepted that life does have evil things and people, and that one does not make a career of being “damaged”. Now, a child who is disciplined physically is “abused”, and if a child is told of his/her behavioral, ethical or moral deficiencies, that is “emotional abuse”.
Let ‘em man up some. Jews spent some thousands of years telling their offspring just what was right and wrong, they were quite ‘controlling’, yet they produced a remarkably creative/productive population throughout those millinnia.
Liberalism considers much of their child raising methodology “abusive”. Ditto for Christians.
And, as for the instant case of a 12 year old boy who voluntarily had sex, I still am unconvinced that such an experience “damaged” that boy. Forcible rape is another thing, but not what was being discussed in this case.
How a person can violate the behavioral norms described in Judeo-Christianity and justify such violation on “abuse” is beyond me. Regardless of what you have experienced, you have Commandments to follow. Reasonably acculturated people know what they should do.
I can understand how that swarm of “intervenors” justifies they career - “income stream” covers their motivation.
Thanks for the data, and thanks rather more for understanding that my question was a valid one.
For what it's worth.....
I have found your request for hard data articulate, simple, and reasonable.
As best I can determine from the responses to your request, the answer is NO.
There is no hard data available from this crowd.
Thank ya kindly - I truly do appreciate that!
I find your desire to defend child molestation off putting as well but I’ve been replying to your posts with as much grace as I can manage.
The request for sourced data is reasonable, except to those whom Eric Hoffer aptly dubbed “true believers”. Given that during most of human history, in most all cultures, females married earlier than men would tell any but a “true believer” something.
I disagree. Asking for proof that pedophilia harms children is akin to asking if cannibalism is really wrong or requiring that one prove that slavery really harmed slaves. It’s something that any reasonable American should understand instinctively, based on the very basic premise of the ethic of reciprocity. Failing to understand this very basic principle demonstrates a lot. Another thing that any reasonable American should also instinctively understand is the concept of informed consent…something that we know a child cannot give. This is the first time marriage has been introduced and it’s a red herring argument however in the shared history of western culture it has never been a cultural norm to have an adult marry a child. Further since the dark ages the average age of marriage has been remarkably similar.
Should you be either a Christian or a Jew, your theologicl system should have given you a basis for a less ‘unbalanced’ if not downright simplistic/snarky reply.
This is not a theological debate. This is purely a philosophical debate based on logic concerning law and the reasons behind them.
Desperation leads to straw dogs arguments. I said nothing of queers because I know them to be an infinitesimal part of the human race. Again, were you either from a Christian or Jewish background you would know that such people were seen as ‘abominations”.
Simply because you don’t want to deal with the logical premise of the questions you’ve asked doesn’t mean that they are not germane questions.
What was good enough for the Jews, Christians, and the people who founded America is sufficiently acceptable to me. May I suggest a bit of reading? Other than Libroid trash, that is.
Your arrogance to suggest that I need to read something other than liberal trash is amusing when you are so obviously ignorant. The people that founded America understood the ethic of reciprocity…in fact one could say that it is the foundational principle of our constitution. They also understood the concept of informed consent.
Your problem may lie in your acceptance of the state usurping the role of the parent in deciding a child’s maturation. Do realize that until the rise of Libralism and the Agenda Uber Alles mentality of that set, the parents of a sexually maturing child (of either sex), not the state, determined (or profoundly influenced) when and whom their offspring married.
Your problem is that you think that our laws, generally based on reason, and specifically in this case based on reason, logic, and history, are faulty although you have presented no valid justification for this position. Again this brings into question your motivation for questioning the age of consent laws. Parents can, if they so choose, allow their minor children to marry but if attempting to do so outside of a reasonable constraint the state would step in.
Calm your self, contemplate your inner adult, and consider the following:
1. When the state, with the best of intentions, attempts to arbitrarily set an age for sex or marriage, they have embarked upon a fool’s errand. Such detailed data is required for such decisions that only a family, aided by relatives and hopefully, assisted by coreligionists, can hope to wisely counsel a young person.
My inner adult huh...have a struck a nerve or something? Our society has determined the age of consent and the age of majority not arbitrarily but based on reason and history. We are a society ruled by law, and while not all laws are based on logic and reason, these laws certainly are. You have made no valid argument yet why child molestation should be considered ok by our society.
As you may have noted, history notes some remarkable females who married early and were very successful. My opinion is “Gooberment can’t raise children”
2.When goobers in gooberment agencies are given power to interfere with family decisions, including age of first intercourse, the results are not such that any but a proponent of expansive government could support.
Provide examples of all of the remarkable females that were married at age 12. This is the age of the child of the article. I suggest that if you are a parent and you think it’s ok for your 12 year old to marry or have sex then you are an unfit parent and are no more able to give informed consent then your 12 year old child. A reasonable person would understand that this is not an example of government “raising” a child. It’s government performing it’s valid function, that of protecting the rights of an individual.
Using Florida as an example, children removed from sexually abusive families are abused sexually more while in state custody. Nothing to support there.
So is it your position that it’s ok to leave a child to be molested by their parents because they might be molested when placed in foster care? Or is it that the age of consent laws, and incest laws, are stupid illogical and outmoded and the children are just exploring their burgeoning sexuality in a “safe” envioroment? How about instead we make child molestation a capital crime and break the cycle of molestation?
“If you need scientific evidence to prove that raping a child is harmful not only are you asking the wrong question, you have serious issues.”
No, I have no “serious issues”, but that you have a need to project such on me speaks volumes about you.
Typical liberal argument method. You are the one defending child molestation not I.
The discussion is about appropriate age of consent, who grants that consent, and the role of the state in such consent.
The discussion was about why one would ask for evidence of harm in a clear cut case of rape and then whine about logical inferences stemming from this request.
Given your need to accuse me of “serious issues” it seems to this non-Liberal that you appear to be a Liberal, indulging in LiberalSpeak as you avoid the questions I raised to snidely imply that you think me to be a person with serious confusions regarding appropriate things sexual.
When you are questioning why a 38 year old woman raping a 12 year old boy is deemed wrong by our society and asking for evidence that it actually does harm to the child, then a reasonable person has to ask what your damage is. Trying to suddenly conflate it with marriage is intellectually dishonest at best. Further, suggesting that the age of consent be lowered to 12 absent evidence of harm demonstrates that you don't understand the concept behind the age of consent laws, the concept of informed consent, the concept of the rule of law, the American concept of Government, and what the age of majority means.
Beyond discussing this with your psychiatrist or psychologist, I can only suggest less projection and more attention to the issues I raised.
Defending children against people questioning age of consent laws, with such an extreme example, isn’t a position that I’m ashamed of and it’s not indicative of any pathology that I’m aware of.
In closing, do you have any references to hard data sources that early sex is “damaging” to males? If so, how is “damage” defined, and what methodologies were used in the determination.
Define early. Are you questioning age of consent laws based on the premise that if there is little permanent damage then the concept of age of consent should be abrogated? Do you believe in the concept of informed consent? Is it possible to violate an individual rights without harming said individual? Should parents have the legal authority to obligate their children in legal contracts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.