Page 1 of 3

debra lafave: a teacher who had sex with her student.

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:19 pm
by sbohdan
now this is what i hate the most about US laws: people live in the dark middle ages (like the times of inquisition) when it comes to sex.the law and the whole mainstream approach in the media towards sex is just plain sick. sick to the core.making a subject about lewinski sucking bill clinton, and all the teachers having sex with their students (the latest debra lafave) so what!!! it is non of the states fricken business who has sex with whom as long as it doesnt involve rape. when I was 14 I just wished anybody would have sex with me. almost any female! not to mention a beautifull girl like debra. that 14 year old is a lucky bastard and I think anybody feels this way who saw debra. he was also a jerk to give her up. law like this is just plain sick. I get upset just to think about it. why do they have to publicize it. its a private matter concerning 3 people at most (including the husband I guess).its nobody elses business. getting jail for something like this...just plain unbelivable. larry king wanking on the subject on prime time when there are americans dieing every day in irak and many other really important things happening around the world (global ecological disaster for instance) . just sick. no wonder nobody else wants the laws and "democracy" of this sort. Im sorry for all the americans stuck in this. no wonder the last whitch-hunt and linching of whitches also happend in the US. a country where its ok to have brains and blood splashing all over the wall in a movie but if there is a tit flashing then its "R" rated. when in georgia, florida and some other states there are still sodomy laws aplied (you can get up to 20 years in prison for a blow-job or anal sex), you get an electric chair for robbing a bank but you might get away with few years for murder if you have a good lawyer. everything just upside down. just plain sickening. I dont want to offend any of you guys. Im not against the US, but I strongly object to any unfair and unhuman laws wherever I see them. Im sorry again if I offended anyone with my strong view on the subject. its just my opinion in this off topic forum.

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:42 pm
by sbohdan
just one more little example taken from the US law so you know what I mean: ... d+18.2-344

no comment.

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:11 pm
by Sovereign
For the record, if there was no deterrant for these things, they would happen alot more often. The US tends to be strait-laced about "moral" issues (abortion, gay marriage...) as in "I'm right, you're wrong, burn in hell, nonbeliever!" So in other words, prepare to be flamed by conservatives... I'm for safe, legal and rare abortions, and as far as I'm concerned, abortion is OK until the fetus becomes concious and self-aware (hence a "baby" and not a "fetus") but since we cannot tell when that point is, the war continues...

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:21 pm
by -mogwai
i think this is pretty pathetic.... not the whole u.s. stance on sex with someone or someplace that would be deemed inappropriate, but this whole argument.

the dumb lady had sex with her child student.

obviously, it's inappropriate.

i dont understand what you guys are complaining about... are you complaining that you didn't have the "good fortune" to have sex with a sexy teacher?

all jokes aside, do you honestly see nothing wrong with a grown-up having sex with a kid?... especially when the grown-up is in a career where she is socially and legally entrusted with the well-being and social, intellectual, and physical development of peoples' children?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:53 pm
by sbohdan
I dont think a 14 year old boy is a child. an adolescent teenager maybe. some guys at this age are pretty grown-up and mature. also this was a totally consentual sex with no forcing of any kind: neighter phisical or psychological. it wasnt the teenager who had the objections but the state which gets involved with peoples private lives way to much in my opinion. its not a 9 year old we are talking about but a 14 year old horny boy that will remember this as one of his best moments in his life not one of the worst ones. it was not rape. many countries have 14 as an age of consent exactly because at 14 its not little kiddo that has no clue what is going on. after all said the woman is arrested, thrown in jail will probably be sentenced for years and is being humiliated in front of the whole world, being a subject of gossip and all this for a little sex with a guy who loved every minute of it. of course she is guilty of cheating on her husband, but this should be their problem and could be a possible divorce reason but certainly not punishable by a jail term. again: there is a difference beetwen a predator pedofile (which is a high crime) and a young women (23y) who has consentual sex with a horny teenager. also some 14 year olds are gang members killing other people and usually being tried as adults. this tells something.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:51 am
by InFuZiOn
As far as I'm concerned if you're 14 or older and you have consensual sex with someone they can be as old as that person likes them to be. The state can shove it up their ass. Hell when I was 14 I dreamed of scoring with a beautiful teacher like Debra.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:21 am
by jigr69
Here in the UK, this case is rarely heard of, but I know the sort of thing you guys are on about. Over here we have something called "The Sex Offenders Register", which means anyone commiting a sexual offence is placed on the register. Once on the register, you have to say hello to the Police every so often, inform them if you intend to move house etc.... Which is a good point if we are talking about adults who prey on children for sex. However, there was a case recently where a 15 year old boy had sex with a 14 year old girl, and since she is under the legal age, he will be placed on the register when he hits 16!!!

They found out because she became pregnant by him, but its more the case that he never forced her, they were seeing each other for a couple of years, they were just plain stupid or unlucky for her to get pregnant. Why should this bloke be compared to a 50 year old man who preys on young girls is beyond me. There is a real danger of the term "common sense" becoming consigned to the history books.

I must add that in my experience, the Police with the best use of common sense, are the motorway police. Having one sit behind me at 95mph on a 70mph motorway, and for him to wave me to slow down as opposed to booking me, is the ideal use of common sense. (The motorway was relatively empty and towards late evening.)

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:19 am
by sbohdan
Im glad some people still have common sense. when the law treats a middle aged pedofile praying on helpless children the same as consentual sex between a 14 year old and a pretty girl that is not much older, than a law like that is wrong and needs to be changed. the first case is wrong but there is nothing wrong with the second exept the fact she cheated on her husband but thats another matter. in my view the law shouldn't get involved with this period.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:02 am
by bubba
I used to think hey if your old enough to get it up, get it on.

not no more, 14 is way to young. now this kid, yes KID, what if he got the chick pregnant, hmmm... now he is a 14 year old father. Now I'm 28, I bust my balls trying to make enough to house and feed my 2 kids. There no way a 14 year old is going to do it, and even if you don’t look at the money aspect of it, look at it this way. imagine not even be able to drive yet and you are now responsible for care and well-being of a human life, and you still have to ask mommy and daddy for money and ride to the mall.

baby's haven baby's

I know someone will bring up "safe sex" all well and good if iits done, but it only takes once.

now as for most if not all state laws on sex, I would say that 90% of those laws are from WAY back, I'm talking civil war era. some states have revised and/or removed the ate up laws, some haven’t (mainly the east coast states).

as far as I am concerned way 2 (or more) grown adults, who can take the responsibility of their actions and doesn’t harm anyone or anything, do behind closed doors if non of my business. To each their own.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:12 am
by alister
Consider this suppose a state has an age of consent at 18. An 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, he dumps her, she gets mad and tells her parents. He is now in trouble for having sex with a child :) There is only a 1 year difference in age but he can be charged and possibly sent to jail and be put on sex offenders list. That sucks...

When I was 14, I can think of several teachers that I would have like to have gotten busy with :) It would have been consentual on my side.


Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:27 am
by Bio-Hazard
alister wrote:Consider this suppose a state has an age of consent at 18. An 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, he dumps her, she gets mad and tells her parents. He is now in trouble for having sex with a child :) There is only a 1 year difference in age but he can be charged and possibly sent to jail and be put on sex offenders list. That sucks...
That's exactly why I HAD to join the Army in the first place back in the day when they gave you the option of Military or jail time....... :shock: I took the Army............. 8) And it worked out for the best even if it was during Vietnam.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:34 am
by sbohdan
bubba wrote:I used to think hey if your old enough to get it up, get it on.

not no more...
I totally agree. a 14y. old shouldnt have anyone pregnant, as a matter of fact if he was 30y. still a problem impregnating a married women BUT this is not my point. Im saying that if this happens than it shouldnt result in a jailterm. its a civil matter arguably moral but not criminal. but for right now its criminal big time. I mean the case is on CNN being debated prime time and treated by the media and courts like she have killed at least few people.

alister wrote: Consider this suppose a state has an age of consent at 18. An 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, he dumps her....
good point alister. couple of years ago I have actually seen a case like this (18y. boyfriend vs. 17y. girlfriend) they were in love and had to run together through several states to stay together and avoid the boy ging to jail. the police was chasing them, there was a warrant issued, and It was on "americas most wanted" tv show. I couldnt believe it. like he was a serial killer or a drug kingpin... it would of been funny if it hadnt been true.

Bio-Hazard wrote: That's exactly why I HAD to join the Army in the first place...
wow! you had a choice of going to wietnam or rot in jail! thats almost like getting a death sentence considering how many died or were crippled in vietnam. anybody else thinks there is something really wrong with this picture? these examples are precisely what make me think the whole approach towards sexuall conduct is totally wrong in some states. treating sex like a major evil... instead they should focus more on movie companies flooding the tv and cinemas with utter violence making lots of kids think killing and bashing someones head is a normal interaction with other people. also drug companies feeding everyone with psychodrugs (see the columbine high school and other school killings), the government sending young people to die by thousands in wars to get some of these bastards more power (nixon), oil (bush and dick chaney) and money. these would be more important issues to look at than couple of people having sex (and not harming anyone else with this BTW)

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:43 am
by bubba
same could be said for a 20 year old getting busted for drinking, yeah he/she is 1 year from 21, its a law it got broke its the chance they took.

I not going to say the law is with out flaw, if a 17 and 18 year old was in question I dont think it would cause to much problem and be thought of an exception to the rule in court, thought most states the age of consent was 17, But an 14 and a 18 there would be an issue. 14 and 30 is just not right.


looked up Missouri's law on this, I was a little more than shocked.
If you are over 18 but under 21, the age of consent is 14. If you are over 21, you may not have sexual intercourse with anyone under 17.
14 is to dam young.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:57 am
by infinitevalence
ahh... yeah, not that thats going to stop kids these days.

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:15 pm
by -mogwai
am i one of the only people here who realizes that a 14-year-old is still in his/her formative years and that their minds are still developing? typically, the mind is like wet concrete until the age of about 16-18.

a 14-year-old is still a frigging child. screw that "adolescent" noise.

don't get me wrong... it's not like i walk around in the mall and DON'T think that the high school chick i just walked by looked like a fully loaded hot sandwich... but the fact remains that it'd be wrong to take a bite, regardless of how good it'd taste.

sbohdan, after you learn about "phisical" and psychological development, human sexuality, and sexual development, you'll realize that regardless of the fact that if the sex offender isn't a true "pedofile," there is something to be said about sexual abuse and about developmental alterations.

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:28 am
by sbohdan
well well, I did study psychology and human sexual behavior...
I do agree with most of what you say except whatever these two did had nothing to do whatsoever with any kind of abuse. when it comes to real rape or any real phisical or psychological abuse then Im strongly for punishing the abuser BUT in this case its only a stupid, long time outdated law that talks about abuse. I bet anything if you asked the boy he will never mention abuse, rather use terms like mutual, pleasure, good time, best time of my life etc. I see no abuse here. do you always blindly agree with any law just because its written down? laws are made by humans and humans make mistakes - these mistakes have to be corrected. do you really believe audiophile that this 23y. old should be arrested and thrown in jail for some sex that didnt hurt anyone? tell me who did it hurt and I will reconsider maybe. besides: if a teenager wants to have sex, then she or he will have it, no mather what the law says. also, some people arent mature when they 30y. hell, some never grow up. but some mature earlier then others and a strict law that doesnt recognize that- is garbage. it should be a private decision to make when and with whom I have sex as long as I dont hurt anyone and as long as there is no rape involved. and dont forget its a 14 year old. when I was 14 I was already 6' tall, 190pounds and had facial hair. people thought I was 24 and I would of never let anyone tell me with whom I can have sex with. people who are less mature at that age dont even want to have sex because they arent ready. so screw a law like this. I will never respect a law that I know is idiotic probably made up by some drunken judge or corrupt politician. politicians dont want you to do many things, and are themeselfs often corrupt, commiting crimes you couldnt even imagine (just watch cnn and you will see plenty of those)

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:50 am
by -mogwai
the teacher was using the pubescent kid for sex.... that is called sexual abuse. i don't know where you got the silly idea that abuse is only whenever it's not wanted by the other person. over 40% of child molestation cases (ages 7-12) are consensual. the kids do it because it's fun to them. does that mean it wasn't abuse?

and, i doubt you've studied psychology. no offense to you. it's just that every argument you've made thus far makes you sound like a jealous teenager.... not one who has studied neurology, psychology, or sociology.

p.s. it's "physical" and "pedophile"...

if you want to be taken seriously or if you want your argument to be taken seriously, you need to come to the table with something other than being a tall 14-year-old and drunk judges... this entire thread is invalid and stupid and so is the idea that adults should be able to have sex with pubescent teens if there is consent.

you've got to be an absolute idiot to think there's nothing wrong with an adult, especially an adult entrusted with the task of molding young minds, having sex with a pubescent kid.

the end.

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:18 am
by sbohdan
yeah using my ass! and Im using my girlfriend and she is using me too and you are using your boyfriend:) you are totally confused. just repeating what you heard on tv. have no brains on your own? if you kidnap someone and tie her/him up in the basement and visit just to release your urges thats using.

so is it pubescent or prepubescent now?:? it makes all the difference. but its a waste of breath on you I see. I said what I wanted and looking at the thread it doesnt seem invalid to me. seems like others generally agree with me so you can go on and bark some more with the rest of the linching crowd and burn the witch! just throw her in jail! kill her! I say: judge yourself before you judge others and "let the one who has no sins throw the first stone"

also I have seen you write some pretty stupid things on the forum before and still didnt go on barking at you. I think everyone is entitled to have there own opinion and this is mine (apparently others share it too)
and P.S: I do know how to spell but I do make mistakes and so do others writing in a forum and doing 4 other things at the same time on the computer, not like Mr. perfect here. :rolleyes:
also I wonder how many mistakes would you have in those other 3 languages I happen to speak? I guess none- since you dont speak them! :finga:

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:04 am
by -mogwai
i meant pubescent. thanks for pointing it out.

regardless of who agrees with you or not, your case is invalid. just because a group agrees with you doesn't make it valid. civil rights taught us that.

i never said to "burn her" or "kill her" (great way to try and validate your invalid argument... change the tone of your argument by associating the opposing argument with hyperbole :-s :lame: ) or anything. however, she does deserve time in a correctional facility.

it's spelled "lynching."

the correct scripture is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

you never answered my question:
audiophile wrote:i don't know where you got the silly idea that abuse is only whenever it's not wanted by the other person. over 40% of child molestation cases (ages 7-12) are consensual. the kids do it because it's fun to them. does that mean it wasn't abuse?
don't try and sidestep the ineluctable reality that your entire remonstration is sophistical.

p.s. you're quite the mature one, i see...

and you're not the only one who can speak three languages...

... again with the tergiversation! what does being trilingual have ANYTHING to do with this?

you're hijacking your own thread :hijacked:

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:01 am
by sbohdan
Im not gonna repeat myself again. just keep talking about children between 7-12y. having sex with those makes you a pedophile with a 14 year old it doesnt. get it? so stop "sidesteping". nobody talks about children here but you. my whole point is that there is a difference between little children and a 14 year old. I allready made my point. repeating myself would be senseless, so have your last say! look who is infantile... :mrgreen: