Teacher Charged With Having Sex With 13-Year-Old Student

AP ^ | Feb. 9, 2005

[robowombat]

Teacher Charged With Having Sex With 13-Year-Old Student

Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2005 McMINNVILLE, Tenn. - An elementary school teacher has been charged with having sex with one of her students, a 13-year-old boy, at his home and at school, authorities said Tuesday.

Pamela Turner, 27, was charged Monday with 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape for acts between November and January. Story Continues Below

Turner, who teaches physical education at Centertown Elementary, lived at the boy's house "for a brief period of time when she was moving from residence to residence," Warren County prosecutor Dale Potter said. The boy's parents did not know anything about the relationship, he said. Potter said Turner was arrested Monday in Clarkrange, her hometown about 55 miles northeast of McMinnville in central Tennessee.

Conviction on all counts could be punished by up to 100 years in prison. But Potter said it was more likely that a conviction would mean a minimum of a year to several years in prison.

Turner is free on $50,000 bond. She's been placed on leave by the school system.

A telephone message left at the home of her father, who lives in Clarkrange, was not immediately returned Tuesday evening.

Turner's husband filed for divorce in January, alleging inappropriate marital conduct, according to the Southern Standard newspaper in McMinnville.

© 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

[Minn]

A guy told me once quite proudly how his housemaid took his virginity as a teen. To know him is to know he can't hold down a relationship at all.

A good friend of mine had a babysitter that would allow him to draw circles on her breasts with a magic marker. Fortunately, he's ok now, in spite of the humanity of it all.

[Nonstatist]

This isn't some"Summer of 42" initiation into manhood

Fact is, you dont know what it is. She hasnt had her day in court yet.

I was just responding to some broad sweeper of a pontificist who said.. "most of these 13 year old boys tend to grow up facing the same problems 13 year old girls have that were raped by male teachers". IMO, that's an entirely unsupportable statement.

[najida]

OK,
You, Cyborg and Arisina are in my group of heros!

Dang, you girls are smart.

[jes]

Exactly...men are also less likely to talk about their abuse, which often makes things worse.

[billygoatgruff]

Sort of looks like a cross between Rebecca DeMornay and Slutney Spears, which of course would make her crime less heinous to those that wish they could have been in that 13year old boy's pants/shoes.

Her arrest photog with the cute little Britney hat showed her to be smug, uncaring and enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. I say string her up!

[arasina]

No, I haven't. It's a movie?

[nuffsenuff]

The abortion issue has to do with a life that has no say in what is being done to it... the baby in the womb doesn't have a say in what happens.

In the case of this act between a woman and this 13 year old boy, it's illegal because society has deemed it illegal. But if enough women think it is and unfair law that's up to them to address it.

BTW... You say "Forget gender for a moment..." and then proceed to ask me about males. Does this make sense to you?

[TheForceOfOne]

I would call by buddy.

I would call my lawyer.

I would call a doctor.

[cyborg]

That's a nice compliment to be in the same group with her. Anyway, I know from unfortunate experience how twisted a man can get by early sex. Also, a true christian man wants the very best for his son. No christian man would encourage his son in immorality.

[nuffsenuff]

Exactly.

[cyborg]

They ruined an otherwise good movie but I don't want to spoil it.

[cyborg]

That's really bizarre.

[Airborne1986]

"By your logic, all good looking women are perverts?"

If only ...

[jes]

What I meant was forget about your argument that you have no say because you are a male--sorry for not clarifying.
I still think your answer is a cop-out. You state "if women feel its wrong, they should address it." That's ridiculous. It should be men, if anyone, who address it because they are the ones alleging they are not victims.
You state society has deemed it illegal, therefore it must have some type of negative effects on the victims. In your world, however, would you make females incapable of sexual abuse? Simple question.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

I know one thing if I were that Boy....I sure as hell would never miss school. As for him being damaged for life...what kind of ignorant drivel is that.... I think I may have been damaged for life for lack of having a teacher like that rape me and making me resort to viewing the lingerie section of the Sears and Roebuck catalog one handed..

[HitmanLV]

Sure.

First you have to remember that there are extended physical consequences to sex that are exclusive to females. Pregnancy is the primary one I am thinking of - a female engaging in sex bears the risk of pregnancy, (though in normal circumstances does not bear the entire responsibility for pregnancy). There is no comparable physical consequence of sex on the part of males.

Because of this, there has been a longstanding (and I think largely legitimate) public policy concern to more closely guard and protect the sexuality of women more than to guard and protect the sexuality of men. That's commonly called a 'double standard' by those uncomfortable with the thought that men and women are somehow different, but in fact it is not a double standard (two different standards for the same thing), but rather it is two different standards for two different things.

This is mostly because of the significant difference in consequences of sex for men and women. A fleeting, thoughtless, or criminal sexual contact to a female may result in an unwanted pregnancy, which is a pretty major consequence that requires some tough decision making as well as the possibility of an extended physical commitment by the woman for almost a year, if she decides not to end the pregnancy.

A fleeting, thoughtless, or criminal sexual contact to a male has no comparable consequence.

Secondly, there is a significant risk of an adult male sex organ causing long term and permanent damage to a young female's sexual organs, maybe harming her ability to one day have children, or even compromise her physical ability to enjoy sexual satisfaction later in ife. That too is a physical consequence that females bear a risk that males bear no comparable risk at all.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I feel the need to point out that that many men would look upon a woman whose sexual wiles and skill might physically harm his sex organs with reluctant admiration and an almost overpowering intrigue and fascination).

To be fair, there are risks shared by both sexes (social disease, the fact that the person may be ill-equipped and unprepared for emotionally, etc), but these issues are always present in any sexual contact anyway, so while an issue, they appear on both sides of any permutation of the equation so they cancel out.

Those are probably the main public policy reasons for having the two different standards in this case.

I don't doubt that any adult who engages in sexual contact with a child is mentally ill and if convicted should be locked up. That being said, if you read the details of the allegations I think there are a total of 15 counts of sexual battery and 13 counts of statutory rape for acts between November and January.

As uncomfortable as it might make some folks feel, that's quite a bit of action in a relatively brief time. I don't doubt at all that the young man was strongly impressed with this very physically attractive woman (an entirely normal and natural reaction), and when presented with her sexual receptiveness, indulged.

Having been a 13 year old boy once (for a year), a fairly prominent thought that lingers in the average mind of an average male that age is to carnally possess, to sexually 'have' beautiful women.

It doesn't even really matter if the female is particularly nice, warm, pleasant, etc. It's not even necessary that males know them very well or at all - it's mostly a physical drive.

While both sexes have the advantage of not needing to love or have an emotional bond with (or even like, or even know) a person they share physical sex with, the truth is that women - while the idea of physical intimacy with a physically pleasing male appeals strongly to them - don't have the same kind of drive as dominant.

The average female seeks an emotional bond (in fact, begins to form an emotional bond even if no bond existed prior) with males she engages in sex with. That's not unusual at all - its perfectly normal. While the same is true for males to an extent, it's nowhere near as prominent an impact.

I'll give you an example that illustrates the different perspectives and in no way represents exclusive opinions by either sex: at my old office a married woman (who reportedly felt very physically and emotionally neglected by her spouse) began to indulge in an extended sexual tryst with a male coworker. Over the course of their relatively brief affair, she developed a strong emotional bond with her paramour. Inspired by her new emotional outlet, she mustered the courage to come clean to her spouse and profess her love for the new man, which of course ended their marriage.

Well, over the course of their sexual indulgence, the paramour didn't develop anything remotely resembling an emotional bond with her, and wanted no part of an extended commitment. She didn't take that very well. Everybody involved had to leave (and I was in an office of 1000s in a major law firm in nyc).

Anyway, the battle lines formed along sex lines: The women felt sympathy for her - identifying strongly with her feelings of emotional neglect, and while not endorsing her adultery, felt very bad for her. To them, the 'bad guy' in the story was the paramour, for not following through on his emotional commitment to her.

"What commitment?" most of us males asked. For us, it was a no-brainer. A 1/2way decent looking woman offered no-strings sexual adventure to a man, who admittedly didn't act honorably since she was married, but she had no right to consider the relationship as anything more than physical. To us men, she was the one who didn't 'get it.'

This illustrates nicely, I think, how the sexes look at sex differently. And while each side can take jabs at the other and call their position sexist, the truth is that both sides are entirely sincere and are just looking at the situation through their own prisms. For the women, 'of course' she developed an emotional bond with a male she was having sex with, how dare he not? For the men, 'of course' it was just sex for him - he barely knew her, really, and how dare she think it was more than that?

It's not sexist on either side, its just a natural application of their (dominant, though not exclusive) mentalities about sex. Both sides are sincere and 'right,' it's just that both sides are not factoring in that the sexes look at sex differently in many respects.

Which leads to another point: also because of this difference in perspective, public policy can reasonably decide to guard female sexual sexuality differently than male sexuality.

Anyway, the instinct to sexually enjoy beautiful women is fairly prominent in males of most ages. So knowing what I know about 13 year old boys, and acknowledging her great physical fitness and beauty (which probably places her as the physical superior to over 90% of women, which is to say most men would find her a lot more physically appealing than most women), it's no stretch to conclude that he who was also quite willing to sexually indulge in her freely offered intimate charms.

The truth is that, largely because she is much more physically impressive than the wide majority of women, most males who look at the situation respond more strongly on instinct (the instinct to sexually enjoy varied physical sex - with minimal emotional commitment - with beautiful women), many men won't quickly get to the more important public policy issue (she is likely mentally ill and a criminal), though they will get to that in time (and I have to tell you, it may take a while).

So if she was overweight and gruesome, most of those same men would instinctively respond with repulsion. Sexist? No, not really, just the natural symptom of the way us guys think.

See, most of us males when presented with the situation look at the story, see her picture, our eyes move from her head to toe, toe to head (stopping off - and lingering - at some points in between), and our hardwired sexual instinct takes over. "Mmmmmmmm." The prospect of having her fit, leggy body inviting us for uncommitted sexual indulgence (over and over and over) is very strongly appealing (largely based on our predisposition to enjoying sex as more - but not exclusively - a physical adventure, and less of an emotional one). When we project that situation to our young teen years (where thoughts of sex with varied, beautiful women are fairly dominant) and the initial reaction for many males is, as Bogie would say, very literally 'the stuff dreams are made of.' Colloquially speaking, we get a 'woodie.'

Those things, as you may or may not be aware, have been known to override rational thought (I know in my life they have).

This is especially so since most males in adulthood have (wisely) forsaken their hard-wired instinct for sexual variety in favor of the more emotionally fulfilling and better public policy serving life in a monogamous relationship with a woman. For most men, they then develop the emotional bond that is very fulfilling. But, when some of those same males see this situation, the hard-wiring kicks in - "Mmmmmmmmm" - before rational thought takes over.

So when some (or many) males act cavalierly and even jokingly about this situation, realize they are just considering it through the prism of their experience and point of view.

Many of us as adults look at her and say 'I wouldn't kick her out of bed.' When we think about it some more, we look at her and say "So wait a second, you're telling me this 5'11" blonde is coming by my room when I was 14 (after my parents have gone to bed) in her panties and a belly-revealing, tight, and bosom-flattering 1/2 t-shirt, winking and whispering 'it's time to take care of mommy, stud, and lets try to be a little more quiet tonight, we don't want to wake your parents...'

While I think it's safe to say that most people of both sexes find that scenario with a hunky adult male and a 13-year old girl downright creepy, because of several reasons many (if not most) males consider that scenario with this WCW Nitro Bikini Model and find it, well, damn appealing (to put it nicely). That's the stuff a 14 year old boy's dreams are literally made of, and truth be told, some of us older guys have that dream from time to time, also.

Cooler heads prevail in time, or rather they should - this woman is clearly mentally ill and a criminal, if she behaved this way (no normal, healthy woman would behave this way). That being said, if the mood strikes her, and if my 37 years are not too old fotr her taste, she should feel free to swing by my apt anytime she wants and act out on her mentally ill hangups! The fact that I don't even know her and may not even like her as a person won't hinder the average male's ability to physically indulge in rewarding sex with her.

Because when you get right down to it, you really shouldn't send a boy to do a man's job! ;-)

[nuffsenuff]

LOL!

[lonevoice]

Hey lets just forget about the fact she's a perverted freak... and probably has damaged this kid for life... after all she's hot.. that's all that matters right?

You're right about that. I have a good friend, a psychologist who specializes in treating adults who were sexually molested as children. He relates that the men molested by women are every bit as F'd up as women molestation victims. There is one particular twist to the male victims...they usually feel stigmatized by the extra burden of our cultural high-fiving that tells them that, if they were real men, they would have liked it. Very sad.

He also tells me that the female perpetrators use exactly the same rationalizations as male perpetrators..."He/she enjoyed it. He/she wanted to do it. He/she had a positive learning experience from me." A pedophile is a pedophile, regardless of their gender!

A lot of women thought Ted Bundy was a good-looking man. I'm mystified that so many seemingly otherwise normal people believe that an attractive man can still be a monster, but an attractive woman cannot.

[najida]

Hey,
you're preaching to the chior!

I was such a bigot that I got huffy when I saw a guy was in a molestation support group (I mean, guys LIKE that, don't they?) Until I heard that it was a woman he viewed as a mother figure and she wouldn't let up until he gave in. I mean physically wouldn't let up. And he is pretty 'effin scared.

I have heard several stories along the same line. Some non-relative molestation, the worse a step-mom who basically put the boy in hubby's role when he died.

All felt that their guilt and bad feelings were wrong because, well "Guys like that stuff!"

Anyhow, the other underlying thing that I find funny (in the land of the double standard) is that all women should be sex starved nymphos who can't live without sex...

UNLESS she is their mother/daughter/sister. Then they 'GASTHP!' must live in fear of all the dread consequences of sex, 'cuz sex can lead to BAD things.
EEK! pregnancy, STD's and a bad reputation.

BUT, the day she gets married, let'er rip Lolita! But how is she supposed to think of sex as good for her? It is something that boys can't live without but girls can't have because it is 'bad' for them? How is the boy supposed to be a good hubby if he as been living in the world of wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am?

Talk about a mixed message.
then we hear ~~whimper~~ my wife is so frigid in bed.

Well make up your mind fellas!

Value both your children equally. You send them both very bad messages that will affect their relationships with the opposite sex for the rest of their lives. I believe ALL kids of BOTH genders need to be protected--- protect one, protect them all).

Hrmpt,
no wonder I'd rather shop for shoes. ;)

[cyborg]

It really is choir preaching. The folks that need to know this is wrong aren't listening.