Posted on 01/09/2015 6:24:29 PM PST by Sawdring
A former Utah high school teacher had sex with an underage student after she was arrested in October 2013 in another sex abuse case involving that boy and two others, prosecutors said this week.
Brianne Altice, 35, was arrested again Wednesday on four new sex abuse charges and released from jail after posting $10,000 bail, court documents say.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I don’t feel tardy.
Not relevant. In the context of teacher-student relationships.
It's more comparable to a lecher-boss who "seduces" his 17 yo employee-underling.
Some bosses might fire an employee who doesn't "comply" to sexual demands; or at least cap the promotional ceiling.
Likewise, teachers are in a position of authority to skew grades -- and it's not always "flunking" a student who resists advances. Sometimes, it goes the other way...for example...
In Oklahoma, 25 yo teacher started texting her 17 yo student...by age 18, the relationship "escalated":
"The arrest report states that the student was flunking English last semester but currently has a 98 percent grade point average."
Kalyn Darby Thompson, Kellyville, Oklahoma (arrested May 2014)
Anyway, your comment shows complete ignorance of the above dynamic.
I mean, would you pull the "she's 17...not talking about a child here" re: a girl preyed upon by either her step-father or the guy her mom is dating?
Give me a break.
Pathetic.
You’re the marrying kind, huh?
Those glasses are just beggin’ for a blast..........
“I guess you missed Tucker’s comment.”
I didn’t miss a single thing and QUOTED THE EXACT SAME PASSAGE YOU JUST DID. I guess you MISSED THAT? I was referring, however, to this point made by Tucker:
“What a whiny country this is. I’m not kidding. You pursue an older woman and have a relationship with her and you’re a rape victim?! It defies common sense,”
which I then turned around with this:
“Tucker Carlson has several children. What if one of his daughters... *****pursued***** a 34 year old male teacher and succeeded in having a sexual relationship with him? Would that be okay?”
See the word “pursued”????
That’s how Tucker said it was not rape for a 34 year old woman to have sex with a minor boy: because “You *****pursue***** an older woman and have a relationship with her and you’re a rape victim?!”
Thus, no matter whatever other comment Tucker makes (i.e. “adding this case should not be treated the same as an older male teacher having sex with a female student”) he is caught out as a hypocrite because if his teenage daughter *****PURSUES***** her 34 year old teacher, according to his logic, it isn’t rape, and thus, must be okay.
Get it now?
I highlighted his comment because you Posted your initial response as if he didn’t say it.
He made a point to differentiate between a Teenage Girl and a Teenage Boy. You may disagree with his viewpoint, but your example is exactly what he did not approve of.
I’m not arguing whether he is hypocritical or not. I just made the point that he offered a caveat, right or wrong.
“It’s more comparable to a lecher-boss who “seduces” his 17 yo employee-underling. Some bosses might fire an employee who doesn’t “comply” to sexual demands; or at least cap the promotional ceiling.”
No, it is comparable to the boss who caps/fires everyone until he finds young employees who “seduce” him/her to get ahead (i.e. Monika Lewinski) or keep their jobs. Sexual harassment laws have changed exactly nothing.
Actually, women at 35 start having trouble finding interested adult men under 55, who are mainly looking for and finding willing teens and 20-somethings.
But teen and even preteen boys find women in their mid-30s ideal above younger women. It is usually the age of their female rock singer idols for one thing. (Ever seen the “Stacy’s Mom” video? Check it out.)
“I highlighted his comment because you Posted your initial response as if he didn’t say it.”
I posted it first! Clearly that would mean that my other comments were in relation to it but not negated by it. All you did was post back to me the same quote I had already posted and you said that you guessed I missed it. No, I was commenting on how his comment made no sense because of what ELSE HE SAID.
“He made a point to differentiate between a Teenage Girl and a Teenage Boy.”
Correct - and yet his own point was undermined by his own logic. That’s what I pointed out and that’s what you completely ignored.
“You may disagree with his viewpoint, but your example is exactly what he did not approve of.”
NO. Are you forgetting the word “pursued”? That’s the point. If he’s going to say an adult woman cannot be charged with raping a minor because the minor is a boy who (the teacher claims) pursued her than you cannot ignore the importance of “pursuing” if the sexes were reversed. That shoots a huge hole in his other contention that the situation is different if it’s a male teacher and a female student. Tucker is apparently too much of a dumbass to realize that statutory rape is dependent upon age and not dependent upon the sex of the victim. It also is not dependent upon who is pursuing whom although he seems to think it is!
“I’m not arguing whether he is hypocritical or not.”
But I am! So if you’re going to comment on my post you should take that into account shouldn’t you?
“I just made the point that he offered a caveat, right or wrong.”
And his caveat makes no sense. Statutory rape charges have nothing to do with the adult being a woman. They have everything to do with the respective ages of the people involved. If statutory rapes isn’t statutory rape because the teacher is a woman pursued by a teenage boy (and that is what Tucker is saying), then how can he say it is somehow different if the sexes were reversed? So I not only reversed the sexes, I threw in his point about the minor pursuing the adult because he seems to think that makes a difference. He probably believes it shows the boy wanted it so statutory rape does not apply. Well, then, if the teenage girl pursues the adult teacher how can Tucker still say that that is wrong?
Tucker’s point of view makes no sense according to his own words. That’s the point.
#1 While "sexual harassment" often leads to more than that, it is -- of itself -- NOT on the same scope as statutory rape or sexually intimidating/threatening/exploiting a minor sexually while acting in a "position of authority"
#2 "Sexual harassment laws" is also an overly comprehensive umbrella term that really is primarily geared at protecting adults -- vs. minors. I mean c'mon...how often do we read in the news about somebody running afoul of some generic "sexual harassment" code when it involves minors? Also, IMO, adults have more resources available to protect themselves than do minors. So, really, as it pertains to this thread, "sexual harassment laws" are largely irrelevant.
And #3 At least re: any laws protecting minors from those who sexually prey on them -- anybody who concludes that such laws "change nothing" are often like those who claim that abortion laws and parental consent/parental notification laws involving minors also somehow "changes nothing."
But the fact is states passing those laws have changed in some states even the very pregnancy rate among teens -- with teens knowing they don't have a "back-up" abortion clinic plan if they become pregnant.
Basically some laws also "change something" in that they pre-empt increases, even when they don't always "stem the tide."
It isn’t rape.
It may still be wrong but it is abuse of the word rape. Rape is forceable. “Forceable rape” is redundant.
At least I didn’t reverse the facts.
“Also, IMO, adults have more resources available to protect themselves than do minors.”
Adults don’t have CPS or the ability to completely destroy someone with the slightest accusation alone or to use their status for blackmail. So I don’t know what you are talking about and neither do you.
This behavior ends when both consenting parties, teacher and parents/custodian, both face liability.
No excuse with technology anymore.
1. Consent (not the minor), .
2. Parental/custodial obligatory 100% minor law mandated monitoring/notifications.
3. #2 above becomes conciliatory.
Right. If I'd been in her high schrewal class, When and Where would have topped on my list.
Well, since I really don’t care one way or the other about what RINO Tucker said that upset you, I will not bother with this back and forth anymore.
Write him an Email if that will make you feel better.
They don't?
(Well, maybe the ones from your neck of the universe don't)
What UFO did you arrive on again?
I’ll take that for you have no real response.
And it seems that a disproportionate number of the offenders are women.
“It isn’t rape.”
Legally it might be defined as such in some states.
“It may still be wrong but it is abuse of the word rape.”
May still be wrong? So you think there is a chance that a 34 year old teacher having sex with her teenage minor student would be okay?
“Rape is forceable. “Forceable rape” is redundant.”
So if you get an 8 year old to agree to intercourse - thus, you don’t have to use force - it’s not rape?
I think you need to think this through a bit more.
This one could be a "Bobbit."
5.56mm
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.