more teacher news......

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:37 pm

**warning kinda graphic**
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1102051teach1.html

NOVEMBER 2--Meet Jaymee Lane Wallace. The Florida math teacher is facing charges that she carried on an 18-month affair with a teenage student she coached at a Tampa high school.

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 pm

I've grown tired of hearing these stories at all. As a future teacher, it sickens me to think that teachers would sleep with students. Teachers are supposed to set a good moral example in our society. This is really a sad situation.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:22 pm

bozbobcat wrote:I've grown tired of hearing these stories at all. As a future teacher, it sickens me to think that teachers would sleep with students. Teachers are supposed to set a good moral example in our society. This is really a sad situation.

That very well may be, but watch--she'll get a more lenient sentence than would a man in a similar circumstance. See also Mary Kay Letourneau, who has since married the same student (21 May 05).

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:56 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
bozbobcat wrote:I've grown tired of hearing these stories at all. As a future teacher, it sickens me to think that teachers would sleep with students. Teachers are supposed to set a good moral example in our society. This is really a sad situation.
That very well may be, but watch--she'll get a more lenient sentence than would a man in a similar circumstance. See also Mary Kay Letourneau, who has since married the same student (21 May 05).

I've always thought that women get off lighter than men. I don't mean that in a sexist way. It just seems to happen that way. I haven't heard of any men teachers who have done that recently.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:48 am

is this getting old to others as well, oh this makes me sick.

December 11, 2005
Ideas & Trends
The Siren Song of Sex With Boys
By KATE ZERNIKE
WHEN Sandra Beth Geisel, a former Catholic schoolteacher, was sentenced to six months in jail last month for having sex with a 16-year-old student, she received sympathy from a surprising source.

The judge, Stephen Herrick of Albany County Court in New York, told her she had "crossed the line" into "totally unacceptable" behavior. But, he added, the teenager was a victim in only the strictly legal sense. "He was certainly not victimized by you in any other sense of the word," the judge said. The prosecutor and a lawyer for the boy's family called the judge's comments outrageous. But is it possible that the 16-year-old wasn't really harmed?

The last few months have produced a spate of cases where women are prosecuted for having sex with boys: Debra LaFave of Florida, another teacher, faces trial for sleeping with a 14-year-old student; Lisa Lynette Clark of Georgia was impregnated by her son's 15-year-old friend, whom she married a day before she was arrested; Silvia Johnson of Colorado was sentenced to 30 years for having sex with teenagers and providing drugs and alcohol.

Certainly no one doubts that a teacher who has sex with her students should lose her job. Or that a 37-year-old mother should not find herself pregnant by her son's 15-year-old friend. Or that a 41-year-old mother who provides sex, drugs and alcohol to teenagers so she can be cool among her daughter's friends is troubled.

But when the women face prison, questions are raised about where to set the age of consent. And because many of those named as victims refused to testify against the women in what they said were consensual relationships, not everyone agrees that the cases involve child abuse.

"We need to untangle the moral issues from the psychological issues from the legal issues," said Carol Tavris, the author of "The Mismeasure of Women" and a social psychologist. "That's the knot." She added: "You may not like something, but does that mean it should be illegal? If we have laws that are based on moral notions and developmental notions that are outdated, do we need to change the laws?"

Though it might seem that way from the headlines, women having sex with teenage boys is not new. A federal Department of Education study called "Educator Sexual Misconduct," released last year, found that 40 percent of the educators who had been reported for sexual misconduct with students were women.

Charol Shakeshaft, the author of the study and a professor of education at Hofstra University, said that even when the woman is not a teacher, the relationships are not healthy. "A 16-year-old is just not fully developed," she said. "Male brains tend to develop the part that can make decisions about whether it is a wise thing to do later."

Prosecutions of women have been rising slightly in the last several years, said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. Mr. Finkelhor says he believes that the scandal involving sexual abuse by priests called more attention to cases with teachers and other authority figures. But the cases also reflect a decline in the double standard applied to men and women, brought on, he said, by increasing numbers of female prosecutors and police officers who may not buy into the traditional notion that a boy who has sex with an older woman just got lucky.

But several studies have raised questions about whether the recent cases should be filed under child sex abuse.

The most controversial study was published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin. The article, a statistical re-analysis of 59 studies of college students who said they were sexually abused in childhood, concluded that the effects of such abuse "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women."

The researchers questioned the practice, common in many studies, of lumping all sexual abuse together. They contended that treating all types equally presented problems that, they wrote, "are perhaps most apparent when contrasting cases such as the repeated rape of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult."

In the first case, serious harm may result, the article said, but the second case "may represent only a violation of social norms with no implication for personal harm."

They suggested substituting the term "adult adolescent sex" for child abuse in some cases where the sex was consensual.

"Abuse implies harm in a scientific usage, and the term should not be in use if there is consent and no evidence of harm," said Bruce Rind, an author of the study and a psychology professor at Temple University.

This view could prove a hard sell, politically and legally. The article in Psychological Bulletin was roundly criticized by prominent conservatives and denounced in Congress, as was the judge in Ms. Geisel's case. In 2003, Bruce Gaeta, a New Jersey judge, was reprimanded by the state's highest court for characterizing an encounter between a 43-year-old female teacher and a 13-year-old boy who had been a student as "just something between two people that clicked beyond the teacher-student relationship."

Pamela Rogers Turner, a Tennessee teacher, was sentenced in August to nine months in jail for sex with a 13-year-old boy.

Thirteen? Professor Rind and others agree that that is too low to set the age of consent, making 12 truly out of bounds - the age of Vili Fualaau when he began having sex with the most infamous of the teachers in sex scandals, Mary Kay Letourneau. (The fact that a decade later the two are married and even registered for china at Macy's has not changed anyone's mind.)

But Professor Rind and others point out that Canada and about half of Europe have set the age of consent at 14 after recommendations by national commissions. To set it much higher, as most states do, they say, ignores the research, and the hormones.

Even those who argue for more protection of children agree that the laws in this country can be arbitrary. In Ms. Geisel's case, she was caught first with a 17-year-old student, but because he was of legal age, she was charged only after his 16-year-old friend came forward and said they had taken turns having sex. Can a few months make such a difference?

"I'm torn, I don't know," Professor Shakeshaft said. "Teachers are always wrong. And it would be my belief that people aren't formed by 16. On the other hand, my mother married my father at 16 and they were married 65 years."

Professor Finkelhor agrees that there is variability among cases and teenagers but says it's better to err on the side of safety.

Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

DriftCat · Post by **DriftCat** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:00 pm

If it was a male teacher having sex with a 14 year old female he would be strung up (and rightfully so.) Women want equality in everything else and I think they should be treated just as harshly as a man would.

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:20 pm

MM7CAT wrote:If it was a male teacher having sex with a 14 year old female he would be strung up (and rightfully so.) Women want equality in everything else and I think they should be treated just as harshly as a man would.

If true equality was the case, these women should be put away for decades, not just 5 years. A man who slept with a student would get 20 years if the judge was having a really good day. I'm sorry if that sounds sexist, but I couldn't agree more with MM7CAT on that one.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:17 pm

MM7CAT wrote:If it was a male teacher having sex with a 14 year old female he would be strung up (and rightfully so.) Women want equality in everything else and I think they should be treated just as harshly as a man would.

Generally speaking, I agree with this type of thinking (i.e., that people who argue for equality need to be willing to accept equal treatment for all purposes, and not only when it's convenient). That said, though, arguing "equality" only makes sense if the two situations really are equal. Just to play devil's advocate, are the two situations really "equal" in this case? I'm not saying for sure that they're not; I'm just asking, and I think it's a legitimate question.

Simply because of the physical differences between males and females, one could argue that an adult male seducing an underage female is a different situation than an adult female seducing an underage male. That's not to say that both situations aren't wrong; they are, but I'm just saying that they're different. Thus, I'm not sure you can automatically conclude that an adult woman who seduces a high school boy should get the same punishment as an adult man would get for seducing a high school girl (and again, just so no one jumps down my throat for this -- I'm not condoning what the female teachers have done in these cases in any way; I'm only arguing that maybe the situation is actually different than a male teacher doing the same).

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:00 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
MM7CAT wrote:Simply because of the physical differences between males and females, one could argue that an adult male seducing an underage female is a different situation than an adult female seducing an underage male. That's not to say that both situations aren't wrong; they are, but I'm just saying that they're different. Thus, I'm not sure you can automatically conclude that an adult woman who seduces a high school boy should get the same punishment as an adult man would get for seducing a high school girl (and again, just so no one jumps down my throat for this -- I'm not condoning what the female teachers have done in these cases in any way; I'm only arguing that maybe the situation is actually different than a male teacher doing the same).

GL. I don't think you can even go there. How do you quantify "excitability" as a component of statitory rape?

I mean it is clear that an erection indicates such with the guy, and with a girl that will never be quanitifiable. The issue is not excitability, or even complicity, but is age. Society has decided that at the ages described, the assumption is that the sex act is only going to be destructive. In both cases, male and female. the crime needs to be viewed the same with the same punishments attached. IMO

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:12 pm

The equality argument cuts both ways, and both sides are probably part of this discussion. We also have the double-standard concept that boys who have sex are considered "studs" (or at least not generally something derogatory) while girls who get laid a lot are "sluts." Therefore, people assume that having sex with a girl student is a lot worse than doing the same with the boy student. One is cause for shame for the girl, while the other will get most boys a solid high-five from his buddies.

I don't know if I made the argument on this board before, but I know I've talked about it with friends. I agree with the judge -- an older woman having sex with a mid-teen boy is, for the most part, a victimless crime for all practical purposes. Is the boy really harmed for having had sex with an older woman? It would be hard to wipe the smile off of his face long enough to find any damage.

Should it still be a crime? I would say yes, it should be, because of the position the woman is in. As a professional, she is betraying the trust placed in her by the school and by society. It's wrong to have sex with students under all circumstances (although a shocking number of folks from my grandparents generation met when one was a teacher and the other was a student, the student would drop out of school, they would get married, and then live together for the next 60 years). I also believe laws should be, to the extent practical, gender neutral. So if it is illegal for a guy, it should also be illegal for woman. Although the male/female dynamic certainly does lead us to believe (correctly or incorrectly) that one is more harmful to the student than the other.

To paraphrase a line from The Opposite of Sex, it is just wrong for a teacher to have sex with a student ... they should at least wait until they drop out or something.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:47 am

catsrback76 wrote:GL. I don't think you can even go there. How do you quantify "excitability" as a component of statitory rape?

I mean it is clear that an erection indicates such with the guy, and with a girl that will never be quanitifiable. The issue is not excitability, or even complicity, but is age. Society has decided that at the ages described, the assumption is that the sex act is only going to be destructive.

I realize that is what "society has decided," but I don't think that's really the question. The question I'm raising is, is society right? I don't really claim to have the answer, but I think it's too easy to just look at the issue and give the knee-jerk "well, they want equality, let's give 'em equality" response.

It's very PC to say that men and women (or boys and girls) are the same, and should thus be treated the same. And maybe that truly is the right answer in the end; all I'm saying is that I think the issue deserves a little more thought than most people are giving it.

I actually have quite a few more points to make on this issue, but unfortunately I am swamped at work right now and don't really have time to get my thoughts together in any kind of cohesive, non-rambling way. I'll try to get back to this later. For now, though, let me leave you with this thought -- one reason why this situation is complicated is because the teacher's conduct is morally "wrong" for two different reasons: the first being that the boy is underage, and the second being that he is her student. The first of those is a criminal matter, and the second is an ethical matter that reflects on her fitness as a teacher (i.e., a teacher having sex with a student who is not underage would not be a crime, but it would certainly indicate an unfitness to continue teaching). Here's my question, though: how do you think those two factors should interract with one another? Strictly from a criminal/sentencing perspective, should the woman be deemed more culpable because she was the boy's teacher (as opposed to, say, the mother of one of his friends)?

--GL

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:56 am

Grizlaw wrote:
catsrback76 wrote:GL. I don't think you can even go there. How do you quantify "excitability" as a component of statitory rape?

I mean it is clear that an erection indicates such with the guy, and with a girl that will never be quanitifiable. The issue is not excitability, or even complicity, but is age. Society has decided that at the ages described, the assumption is that the sex act is only going to be destructive.
I realize that is what "society has decided," but I don't think that's really the question. The question I'm raising is, is society right? I don't really claim to have the answer, but I think it's too easy to just look at the issue and give the knee-jerk "well, they want equality, let's give 'em equality" response.

It's very PC to say that men and women (or boys and girls) are the same, and should thus be treated the same. And maybe that truly is the right answer in the end; all I'm saying is that I think the issue deserves a little more thought than most people are giving it.

I actually have quite a few more points to make on this issue, but unfortunately I am swamped at work right now and don't really have time to get my thoughts together in any kind of cohesive, non-rambling way. I'll try to get back to this later. For now, though, let me leave you with this thought -- one reason why this situation is complicated is because the teacher's conduct is morally "wrong" for two different reasons: the first being that the boy is underage, and the second being that he is her student. The first of those is a criminal matter, and the second is an ethical matter that reflects on her fitness as a teacher (i.e., a teacher having sex with a student who is not underage would not be a crime, but it would certainly indicate an unfitness to continue teaching). Here's my question, though: how do you think those two factors should interract with one another? Strictly from a criminal/sentencing perspective, should the woman be deemed more culpable because she was the boy's teacher (as opposed to, say, the mother of one of his friends)?

--GL

or perhaps they are a confused...say 16 year old and does not know what to do or think when they are hit on by a authority figure

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:11 am

Not a teacher - but definitely along the same lines as this thread.

Wife Says Teenage Groom Is 'No Victim'

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

ATLANTA — A 37-year-old woman who is seven months pregnant by her 15-year-old groom says she prefers older men, but the teenager wooed her so aggressively that he finally won her over.

Lisa Clark, who faces child molestation charges in Hall County because of her sexual relationship with the boy, said in television interviews on Monday that she still hopes to make a life with him and their baby. She said the morality of their relationship was open to debate, noting that in the past it was not uncommon for 13-year-olds girls to be given in marriage.

"They're making a big deal out of a 15-year-old," she told WAGA-TV in Atlanta. "And I can assure you that he was no victim.

"It's not like they are making it out to be. Actually, I'd told him `no' several times because I prefer someone older, but he was just so nice and so sweet," she said.

Clark was arrested last month after her Nov. 8 wedding in neighboring Dawson County. She was released on bond Nov. 18 on child molestation charges. Since then, a grand jury has added charges of statutory rape and enticing a child for indecent purposes.

The boy, who has been on probation on an unrelated burglary charge, was ordered Monday to return to juvenile detention after relatives he was living with said they could not handle him. On Nov. 23, a Juvenile Court judge freed him from detention and said he could live with relatives other than his grandmother, who said she had complained to authorities for weeks about the sexual relationship the boy had with Clark.

Clark denied a contention that she had married the teen to try to avoid prosecution.

"No, because I knew that wasn't going to happen. I told the detective that I got married because I wanted the baby to have his name. I wanted to be married when the baby came," she said. "And I didn't want his grandmother to get the baby."

Clark said the baby is a boy and would have the middle name of her husband, who has not been identified by authorities because of his age.

SEARCH

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:09 pm

Here is a fly in the ointment, so to speak. My grandmother was 13 when she married my grandfather who was 40, AND THE SHERRIFF of the County.

He had been previously married, his wife died leaving him with 3 children who were within 2 + years of the age of my grandmother. Got it?
( the oldest daughter was 11 at the time of his marriage to my grandmother).

My grandmother had 9 kids by my grandfather, he did, she remarried and outlived 2 other men. I tip my hat to her, she has stamina.

The point being, 90 years ago in backwoods Mississippi 13 was legal age. Now, 16 is the age of consent and so the case is simple. Legally, not morally.
Go figure. O.K now that I've unburdened my soul, who wants to counsel me? I think I need help after all that.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:40 pm

my grandma was 14 and my grandpa 23, so not as old as yours. She thought I was an old maid at just 23 when I married

I was ancient at having a baby at 25. they were married over 50 years when he died, she never remarried. so even in Montana and North Dakota they were very young.