All My Exes Live in Texas

A former Texas high school teacher was convicted of multiple felonies after having sex with five 18-year-old students at her home. The conviction was a victory for the prosecution but it was a setback for the feminist movement. It was also a setback for the homosexual uncivil rights movement, which seeks unlimited authority to redefine relationships among consenting adults.

Brittni Nicole Colleps, 28, of Arlington, was found guilty of 16 counts of having an inappropriate relationship between a student and teacher. In Texas, this second-degree felony is punishable by two to 20 years in prison per count. Because none of her students sodomized her, the relationships have not yet been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

What makes this case difficult for some to fathom is that Colleps is Mrs. Colleps, not Miss Colleps. She is married and has multiple children. She also likes to have sex with multiple school kids at the same time. In fact, she had to turn herself in after one of the student athletes she was having sex with video recorded the encounter using a cellphone. That’s one of the disadvantages of taking on several athletes at once. It’s tough for a girl to know what all the boys in the room are doing at any given time. And it’s tough to keep track of all the electronic devices.

Police Detective Jason Houston testified at trial saying that charges were filed because, whether they are 18 or not, it's a crime for a teacher to have sex with her students. This has some feminists upset because they think it should only be a crime for a teacher to have sex with his students. They think that a woman having sexing with high school students is empowering while a man having sex with high school students is oppressive. As usual, the feminists want to do away with laws that are gender neutral. In their view, it’s the only way to end gender discrimination. It isn’t logical but it doesn’t have to be. It’s feminism so it just has to sound angry.

Feminism has a long way to go to achieve equality but at least it has accomplished one thing: it has more women pursuing careers and acting like hyper-sexualized frat boys. Some women are able to do both at once. (Insert inappropriate multi-tasking joke here).

While Brittni Colleps was at home serving a substantial portion of the boys’ track and field team, her husband was serving in the military overseas. Christopher Colleps said that he is mad at his wife, but stands by her "because `til death do us part means `til death do us part." In other words, Mr. Colleps takes marriage seriously.

Christopher Colleps testified in court that he and his wife had engaged in group sex before – also during the course of their marriage. He also testified that he was “hurt” by what his wife did with multiple high school student athletes. The moral distinction between the group sex in which he participated and the group sex in which he did not participate brings us right to the heart of the marriage debate in 21st Century America.

According to Christopher Colleps, and to homosexual rights activists, marriage is not an agreement between two people and God. It is an agreement between two or more people. The group sex Mrs. Colleps engaged in was not wrong because it violated the laws of God. It was wrong because it violated his rules. Mr. Colleps had to know of the act, approve of the act, and hopefully participate in the act for it to be okay. As long as all the adults offered full knowledge and consent, everything was okay. That is the new view of marriage. It is just whatever the humans want it to be.

The videotaped evidence at trial demonstrated that none of the participants was using a condom. The acts also occurred in a house where three young children were being raised. But remember that if Mr. Colleps had only known and approved – and gotten in on the action! -then everything would have been okay.

The defense attorney for Brittni Colleps said that Texas should not have convicted his client, adding that Texas is too conservative for its own good. He looks forward to the day that the Texas Supreme Court gets the government out of people’s bedrooms and allows consenting adults to do whatever they wish to do in their own homes.

That day has not yet come in Texas. That is good news for Texans who care about their children.

I have it on good authority(WW 2 vet, I knew, who served under him) that George Patton once said, ‘give me drunkards and whoremasters and I will win this war’...truth be known I have tried to google it with no luck...

when I was in high school some 46 years ago it was common knowlege that a friend was boffing a hot female teacher...he was a hero and inspiration to guys throughout the school...we cannot forget that men and women are different...we cannot view the sexes as the same no matter what the national organization of women, tries to cram down our throats...

I have (and always have, had) a problem with authority...more of an individualist type...I realize that is not the way to run an army...but I myself have for a large part made my own rules(well, short of the point where I would have gotten arrested).

Luckily we live in a time, where having a problem with the ultimate US authority, zer0bama, is to the benefit of the nation.

The eighteen year old is not part of the contract. The contract is between the voters who install the government and pay taxes on the one side, and employees hired for government jobs on the other. A high school kid who just turned eighteen isn't a full party. His parents are.

Laws regarding sexual liaisons between authority figures and those subordinate to them not only are not archaic, they exist even in the most far left schemes. Like laws regarding theft and assault, they are non negotiable requirements for any society.

You are still incapable of answering the question of how you regard sexual liaisons between adult officers and enlisted, or between adult psychiatric professionals and their patients. As your entire shtick here seems to be that sex between any two adults is okay any time... Explain how that would work.

However, what we have here is a law with sentencing guidelines which are grossly inappropriate for the crime committed.

Why? The teacher KNEW sex with student was forbidden, but she did it anyway. Tell me, what do you think an 'appropriate' sentence would be if she were having sex with your child?

-----

Both parties who can legally enter into a contract have an obligation to fulfill this contract. This includes the 18 year old's! They have a moral responsibility in this, wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not. First, you argue of a LEGAL obligation of the parties to the compact, then try to argue the legal contract the students didn't even sign somehow imposed a MORAL obligation on them?

Talk about twisted logic.

Anyway, as the students are not parties to the contract, they have no obligation whatsoever.

-----

So, let me ask you, would you sentence this woman for having sex with these 18 year old's if they were not her students?

No.

-----

What is the sentence guidelines in Texas for this crime of adultry? Marriage is a contract.

Adultery is 'breach of contract' because the marriage contract between two individual people stipulates the forsaking of all others, and the injured party can seek restitution for this breech via divorce proceedings.

The contract between an individual teacher and the school district, is not a 'marriage', as the teacher does NOT have the the same rights as the district. Were that the case, the district wouldn't even have the legal ability to stipulate the terms of the contract.

Once she signed it, she became legally bound by its terms, which includes being thrown in jail for having sexual relations with the district's students!

-----

I just think the sentencing guidelines are to rigid for this particular breach when you compare them to other crimes, such as actual RAPE.

So someone who has been entrusted as an authority figure over other [sometimes vulnerable] individuals should just get a pass DESPITE the fact they've violated their oath because it isn't really 'rape rape'?

ALLRIGHTYTHEN!

Is it a crime for 20 yr old and a 30 yr old to have sex, NO!

Is it ILLEGAL for consenting adults to have sex, NO!

Sexual Liaisons between adults in those Professional Relationship capacities are wrong, and constitute an ethical breach of contract, and trust, but SEX is not a CRIMINAL act! You completely miss my point because you got your Namby Pamby on about the morality and ethics of certain relationships and equating these with "The Law".

Any sex between consensual adults is not "OK" anytime because of professional relationship issues and personal violations of trust. But again, not a criminal act!

You have no point.

Sex in all of these situations is illegal.
Not only does the law say it, the majority says it.
We refuse to be shouted down by perverts who wish people in authority to ba able to have sex with those under that authority.

You are in a small minority.

Even most of the left do not want the things you want.
You do not get to twist reality to fit your sexual desires.

There is a reason you are short of allies on this thread.

Its because you are dense, evasive, shrill, and just more connected to pornographic fantasies than to real life.

The things you want are damaging to real people.

Why? The teacher KNEW sex with student was forbidden, but she did it anyway. Tell me, what do you think an 'appropriate' sentence would be if she were having sex with your child?

Because SEX between consenting adults is not a CRIME...The appropriate sentence would be loss of her teachers license and she should not be able to teach again in the state of Texas. My child is an adult at eighteen legally, I would want the same "sentence" as I just described. I do not think she committed a criminal act, just breach of contract. There's a difference.

What if she taught an adult class with the SAME contract and was having sex with 30 year olds, should she get the same 5 years?

First, you argue of a LEGAL obligation of the parties to the compact, then try to argue the legal contract the students didn't even sign somehow imposed a MORAL obligation on them?

18 yr olds are CONSENTING adults! They most certainly do have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to follow the law! Now your twisting the INTENT of what I'm referring too. So, if one of those 18 yr old's got her pregnant would they NOT be liable for the child? Put on your thinking cap for a minute...Under law they would most certainly be liable! Is that in her contract?

So, let me ask you, would you sentence this woman for having sex with these 18 year old's if they were not her students?

No.

Alright, that's my WHOLE POINT! She did not commit a CRIMINAL act, she committed an ETHICAL BREACH OF CONTRACT...Totally different ball game, this is why 5 years in jail I think is a totally bogus priggish sentence. However, I did not realize there was possible jail time sentencing for ethical breaches of contract, apparently there are in Texas!

Adultery is 'breach of contract'

Right, where are all the people getting 5 year sentences for this CRIMINAL (according to you) act?

No, see it's a simple disagreement. There is no question she violated ethics and trust here, however the punishment just does not fit the transgression. Again, take away her teaching license for life, don't throw her in jail for having consensual sex! I wonder why Bill Clinton never got thrown in jail, he most certainly did the same thing?!

Sex in all of these situations is illegal.

Ok, show me the law which make these ILLEGAL for having sex and the sentencing guidelines in each of these described cases.

The things you want are damaging to real people.

I think it's wrong for adults to serve jail time for consensual sex, and this is damaging to "real people!?"

The problem is your Holier-Than-Thou righteous zealotry is causing you to have a blind spot to the "real point." Again, revoke her teacher's license and bar her from ever teaching in another classroom. This is more realistic and appropriate for "real people."

They most certainly do have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to follow the law!

To follow the general laws yes, not the specific laws of her contract.

-------

I do not think she committed a criminal act, just breach of contract. There's a difference.

Here's a thought-- if you don't agree to the terms of the contract, don't sign it.

The fact YOU think its wrong is immaterial. It was the specific terms of her contract that made the breach a criminal act.

-----

No, see it's a simple disagreement. There is no question she violated ethics and trust here, however the punishment just does not fit the transgression.

Maybe we just take such transgressions just a bit more seriously than some folks do.

-----

Again, take away her teaching license for life, don't throw her in jail for having consensual sex!

You keep saying consensual sex. I understand the boys were 18, but seriously, so you think an 18 year old high school boy would not say okay if he were provided with both the opportunity and the acquiescence of a person he considered to be an authority figure to do so?

'Two consenting adults' implies equality, yet the very definition of a student / teacher relationship has an inferior and superior aspect. How does that make the consent of the 2 adults 'equal'?

-----

I wonder why Bill Clinton never got thrown in jail, he most certainly did the same thing?!

Maybe
1) because he didn't have a contract prohibiting it

2) because he wasn't a teacher and the intern wasn't a student

3) because Washington D.C. is a cesspit and wouldn't recognize the concept of 'ethics' if it bit them on the ass

Now, I think this is a GREAT question, but I'm a little confused as what I perceive as your naivete in this particular matter. When I was in school "All" the boys from 13-18 would "talk" about Ms. Andrews the gym teacher! Long story short...No question, Any time! I overheard my 18 yr old son and his friends talking about a teacher at his school, and I'll say 99.9% of all boys have this fantasy. It's not AT ALL about her authority, it's about fantasy. Even though you are right, the authority figure who plays a part in this is responsible, I'll agree, however I highly doubt it was an over riding factor in these boys actions.

Did ONE of these boys say they were raped or taken advantage of by her authority over them? This was all about the PARENTS being pissed and the state bringing charges, which rightfully so they should have.

I'm sorry, but at what point is a consenting adult? The state defines it at age 18. Raise the age to 21 if you think 18 yr olds are too young to be making consensual sex decisions. See, that's a peripheral issue to my whole point. Morally these are children still, but in the states eyes LEGALLY they are adults. Again, if these were 30 yr old men, we would be facing the same issue LEGALLY, but not morally and that's where most of your argument I believe is coming from. I'm not defending what she did was legal, I am saying the punishment for what she did is too obsessive!

Two consenting adults' implies equality, yet the very definition of a student / teacher relationship has an inferior and superior aspect. How does that make the consent of the 2 adults 'equal'?

Because "LAW" dictates they are equal by age. However, the State Of Texas sees this exactly the way you have described as far as sentencing guidelines go, which I think are highly punitive for the nature of the crime.

Did ONE of these boys say they were raped or taken advantage of by her authority over them?

I never said they were. You're the one who tried to equate the Tennessee rape case with this one.

-----

Morally these are children still, but in the states eyes LEGALLY they are adults.

While they are 'legal' adults, they are not LAWFUL ones, because with knowledge, consent and full disclosure, the teacher herself agreed they weren't

She KNEW what she was doing was both immoral as well as illegal. Why do you continually act as if the teacher had some kind of inalienable right to bump nasties with high school boys and do so with minimal consequence?

-----

It apparently will never make sense to you because you fail to understand this is not a general public law applicable to everyone, but a specific contractual law an individual person voluntarily bound herself to be responsible for.

Think what you like.

You're the one who tried to equate the Tennessee rape case with this one.

The only point I was making is not one of the boys complained her "authority" was used to take advantage of them.

While they are 'legal' adults, they are not LAWFUL ones, because with knowledge, consent and full disclosure, the teacher herself agreed they weren't

Bump Nasties?...Oh, now I see how the underlying rogue language is brought to the surface! ;-) Actually, this is the best argument you've made in my eyes because the contract specifically states such a case...bravo! Losing your teaching license and being barred from ever teaching is NOT minimal consequences!

I understand this law and this case. You've made it clear. Why, because if those boys were not her students we wouldn't even be having this debate! It's real simple, if those men would have been 30 yr old students, the same consequence would have befallen her contractually, and to me a jail sentence for this is derisory and smacks of antiquated over zealous sentencing guidelines! Especially, if you compare it to the TN case where actual rape was involved and the perp is going to serve less time!

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.