Hot teacher gives students sex/beer

Alexb2000 said:
My issue with this is the criminal aspect. I don't want anyone coming into my bedroom and telling me what to do and I'm sure you don't either. Both of these people are adults and that's where the law should stop IMO.

Whether or not she should be a teacher is between her and the district, but I suspect those days are over.

I love when people proclaim the moral high ground in a discussion. Cast any stones lately?
Click to expand...

That's my issue with it, as well. The teacher apparently is a slut who exercised poor judgment, but I don't believe that being a slut or having poor judgment should be felonies.

In addition, according to her lawyer, she was not either of the young men's teacher, so there was no issue of their being in a subordinate position. She was a teacher, but not their teacher.

As for the 2007 law in general, it's stupid. The only context I can think of wherein the superior / subordinate relationship is so rigidly enforced as to justify the absolute prohibition of consensual sex between adults would be in prison. The guards' power over inmates is sufficiently absolute that the prohibition makes sense in that context. (The military might be another, but we're talking about a state law.)

The irony is that if the legislators who enacted this law were held to the same standards, their legislative chambers would likely be empty.

I believe that idiotic laws like this partly result from our Calvinistic Puritan lineage, in which belief system all of humanity was permanently divided into two groups -- the elect and the damned -- long before they were ever born. In that sort of system where everyone is either good or evil, and there's no in-between, the "good" people need a constant source of "evil" people against whom to measure themselves to be reassured of their own goodness.

That hypothesis helps explain things like the Salem witch trials, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare, and the various internal "wars" we continue to wage against, for example, people who like to consume certain plants. The vestiges of Puritanism in the American psyche demand that there be evil people against whom the "good" people can measure themselves and be reassured of their goodness.

Simply stated, Puritanism needs villains. It needs them so much that it will create them, if necessary.

During times when real crime rates are high, villains are abundant. The vestiges of the insecure Puritan psyche can therefore calm itself by pounding its chest and clamoring for draconian laws and penalties against various behaviors, but which said behaviors are abhorrent enough that they at least deserve to be illegal.

When real crime rates are declining, however, and villains are not as abundant, it's harder for the ever-insecure Puritan psyche to find enough villains to damn to hell to satisfy our continual need for validation of our own goodness. And so we respond by criminalizing more and more behaviors in order to provide a sufficient stream of villains to validate our tenuous grasp on our own essential goodness.

On a more practical level, a low crime rate creates a very big problem for the Criminal Justice Industry, which needs to justify its ever-increasing budget and bloat in the face of fewer and fewer criminals who are being cooperative enough to commit real crimes. This shortage of criminals with respect to the size of the Industry threatens the livelihoods of its vast army of cops, lawyers, judges, bailiffs, clerks, probation and parole officers, prison guards, and others -- all of whose jobs and the advancement of their careers are perversely dependent on the criminals whose bodies they are paid to shuffle around in boxes both real and metaphorical.

Laws like this almost make me long for the days of my youth, when there was enough real crime that we didn't need to criminalize nonsense.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
And if the story read "married male teacher gives beer and has sex with 18 year old female HS student", we would be OK with this?

I think not. This issue is power, not sex.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

It's been going on throughout eternity though. I went to a catholic high school in the late seventies and we had a coach (who was fresh out of college, probably only 22 or 23) who had himself a few senior girls. He was married. We also had a typing teacher who taught a few of us boys the proper way to hunt and peck. She was single.
 
A clear example of a first world problem.
 
I thought this was an interesting play on words given the context of the article:

School district officials have sacked Leiseth since the alleged incidents came to light
 
Chip Sylverne said:
And if the story read "married male teacher gives beer and has sex with 18 year old female HS student", we would be OK with this?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't we? Consenting adults, compulsory education was finished, and if it's true that there was no direct student-teacher relationship, at most it'd a conflict of interest for their employer to deal with.

Put it another way- a college coed is dating a TA for a course they don't take. Who cares?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
This issue is power, not sex.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. She is a substitute teacher. Maybe things have changed, but I do not recall subs getting enough respect in high school to be able to influence students much IN class let alone outside of school.

This is about a seriously messed up young woman and two horny dudes.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I'm not so sure. She is a substitute teacher. Maybe things have changed, but I do not recall subs getting enough respect in high school to be able to influence students much IN class let alone outside of school.
Click to expand...

Regardless, most (all?) states have laws regarding this. For good reason.

Fearless Tower said:
This is about a seriously messed up young woman and two horny dudes.
Click to expand...

Or a seriously horny young woman and two messed up dudes!!!

BTW...where's the video? Doesn't everyone take video these days? Or at least...

:needpics:

:goofy:
 
warthog1984 said:
Why wouldn't we? Consenting adults, compulsory education was finished, and if it's true that there was no direct student-teacher relationship, at most it'd a conflict of interest for their employer to deal with.

Put it another way- a college coed is dating a TA for a course they don't take. Who cares?
Click to expand...

I believe the issue of compulsory education being finished is the technical heart of the matter. As the saying goes, it ain't over till the paperwork is done.

As for direct student-teacher relationships, what if this had happened at the beginning of the term, and the male teacher had promised his female 18 yr old a good grade in his elective class, should she choose it next semester for a good performance now?

I don't think you can slice it so fine as to have different rules. A teacher is a teacher. Hands off the students until they are officially out of school.

They may be consenting adults, but one has power easily abused.

College is a different situation entirely. That is an ethical, not criminal, matter.
 
People seem to forget that something doesn't need to be illegal to be wrong, nor does everything wrong need to be illegal.
 
timwinters said:
Well, except "yahoo news" isn't a major publication in my opinion. ;)

BTW...if you google her name and look at the images you'll find that she's not hot. Cute face sure but from the neck down...not so much. Way too many donuts consumed in the teachers' lounge. I had far better taste than that when I was 18.

Now that I'm 54 though, sure, it'd work just fine even with the excess baggage! :goofy:
Click to expand...

True. Yahoo is a joke when it comes to news, but it still doesn't seem like the appropriate word to use for a headline.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
And if the story read "married male teacher gives beer and has sex with 18 year old female HS student", we would be OK with this?

I think not. This issue is power, not sex.
Click to expand...

I'd be ok with it. One of the girls in my class married a teacher about 1 week after graduation. Not one person so much as blinked about it. He's still teaching and they're still married. Of course we all grew up together and the age gap was similar to the one in the story.

There were shenanigans much "worse" than that.

I could go on for half an hour about all the crap that happened. From the PE teacher in middle school giving me chewing tobacco, to the arrangement I had with the shop teacher after i caught him boozing behind the build that I used to go smoke behind. I've been out with a sub teacher who bought me and others booze and had another get us beer at the bowling alley.

That's just what I was involved in.
 
Those kinds of laws exist to protect youngsters from harm and coercion. Was anyone harmed in this episode ? Is there any claim that the young men were forced to do something they didn't want to do ?
 
RJM62 said:
That's my issue with it, as well. The teacher apparently is a slut who exercised poor judgment, but I don't believe that being a slut or having poor judgment should be a felonies.

In addition, according to her lawyer, she was not either of the young men's teacher, so there was no issue of their being in a subordinate position. She was a teacher, not their teacher.

As for the 2007 law in general, it's stupid. The only context I can think of wherein the superior / subordinate relationship is so rigidly enforced as to justify the absolute prohibition of consensual sex between adults would be in prison. The guards' power over inmates is sufficiently absolute that the prohibition makes sense in that context. (The military might be another, but we're talking about a state law.)

The irony is that if the legislators who enacted this law were held to the same standards, their legislative chambers would likely be empty.

I believe that idiotic laws like this partly result from our Calvinistic Puritan lineage, in which belief system all of humanity was permanently divided into two groups -- the elect and the damned -- long before they were ever born. In that sort of system where everyone is either good or evil, and there's no in-between, the "good" people need a constant source of "evil" people against who to measure themselves to be reassured of their own goodness.

That hypothesis helps explain things like the Salem witch trials, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare, and the various internal "wars" we continue to wage against, for example, people who like to consume certain plants. The vestiges of Puritanism in the American psyche demand that there be evil people against whom the "good" people can measure themselves and be reassured of their goodness.

Simply stated, Puritanism needs villains. It needs them so much that it will create them, if necessary.

During times when real crime rates are high, villains are abundant. The vestiges of the insecure Puritan psyche can therefore calm itself by pounding its chest and clamoring for draconian laws and penalties against various behaviors, but which said behaviors are abhorrent enough that they at least deserve to be illegal.

When real crime rates are declining, however, and villains are not as abundant, it's harder for the ever-insecure Puritan psyche to find enough villains to damn to hell to satisfy our continual need for validation of our own goodness. And so we respond by criminalizing more and more behaviors in order to provide a sufficient stream of villains to validate our tenuous grasp on our own essential goodness.

On a more practical level, a low crime rate creates a very big problem for the Criminal Justice Industry, which needs to justify its ever-increasing budget and bloat in the face of fewer and fewer criminals who are being cooperative enough to commit real crimes. This shortage of criminals with respect to the size of the Industry threatens the livelihoods of its vast army of cops, lawyers, judges, bailiffs, clerks, probation and parole officers, prison guards, and others -- all of whose jobs and the advancement of their careers are perversely dependent on the criminals whose bodies they are paid to shuffle around in boxes both real and metaphorical.

Laws like this almost make me long for the days of my youth, when there was enough real crime that we didn't need to criminalize nonsense.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Google knows all, how long before it tells all?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I believe the issue of compulsory education being finished is the technical heart of the matter. As the saying goes, it ain't over till the paperwork is done.

As for direct student-teacher relationships, what if this had happened at the beginning of the term, and the male teacher had promised his female 18 yr old a good grade in his elective class, should she choose it next semester for a good performance now?

I don't think you can slice it so fine as to have different rules. A teacher is a teacher. Hands off the students until they are officially out of school.

They may be consenting adults, but one has power easily abused.

College is a different situation entirely. That is an ethical, not criminal, matter.
Click to expand...
Fine. Fire the teacher, revoke her certificate but criminal charger are insane.
 
Gary F said:
Fine. Fire the teacher, revoke her certificate but criminal charger are insane.
Click to expand...

The only way what they did would be a criminal thing is if there was a law making it illegal.

If what they did was illegal, then it was ILLEGAL. If anyone has a problem with that, then they need to work to change the law. Whether or not criminal charges are insane is irrelevant.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The only way what they did would be a criminal thing is if there was a law making it illegal.

If what they did was illegal, then it was ILLEGAL. If anyone has a problem with that, then they need to work to change the law. Whether or not criminal charges are insane is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
OK, then the law is insane. No shortage of stupid laws. In the past year you have probably violated scores of laws. We need many, many more jail cells for all these "criminals".
 
You are all wasting precious time. Didn't anyone buy her some contraception yet? Sheesh.
 
bartmc said:
I'd be ok with it. One of the girls in my class married a teacher about 1 week after graduation. Not one person so much as blinked about it. He's still teaching and they're still married. Of course we all grew up together and the age gap was similar to the one in the story.

There were shenanigans much "worse" than that.

I could go on for half an hour about all the crap that happened. From the PE teacher in middle school giving me chewing tobacco, to the arrangement I had with the shop teacher after i caught him boozing behind the build that I used to go smoke behind. I've been out with a sub teacher who bought me and others booze and had another get us beer at the bowling alley.

That's just what I was involved in.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a typical non standard high school experience, much like mine. So what? I turned out Ok, at least not a felon! This PC crap is getting out of hand.
 
All right so this is how it ALMOST happened.

Mrs. Price wasn't a regular staff member of the school, she just did occasional sub gigs at the high school. Her kids went to the middle school. English was the last class of the day. As soon as the bell rang, all the students bolted for the door.

She flagged me down. "I need you to stay after class for a little bit."

"Sure Mrs. Price." I wonder what this is about. She plopped down some clipped papers on my desk. 'A day in the life of a Knight. An essay by S. Arrow.' Oh, that essay. I wonder how she got a hold of it.

"This is... a very.... mature subject." She then sat down on the top of my desk, and rested her leg on the chair, letting her silk sun dress fall back off her leg, revealing smooth, creamy inner thighs. And just a little bit more.

Now, about the essay. I'm not exactly sure which class this was discussed in, it might have been Mr. Tyler's history class. Maybe it was Mr. Smith's social studies class. Heck, it might have been Mr. Wahl himself, the normal English teacher. Well, at any rate we had some sort of discussion on knightly behavior in old England, and it came up that it was considered proper etiquette for the knights and their social equivalents to flirt with the wives' of higher ranking knights and senior feudal members, but not to actually succeed in any conquest. E.g. "go through the motions." Well basically, I regurgitated the entire discussion in an essay and turned it in.

"Thank you Mrs. Price."

"The busses are leaving. I can give you a ride home."

"Oh thank you Mrs. Price, but I rode my bike to school today."

I don't remember exactly how I left it, but I do remember being encumbered with a giant, huge throbbing rager, then riding home on my bike, and, we'll leave it at that. All kinds of scenarios played through my mind as to how the event MIGHT have unfolded if I stuck around for a while. I still kick myself TO THIS DAY for not recognizing the situation for what it was.

A couple months later I had ONE MORE CHANCE to hook up with Mrs. Price. Moms sent me over to her house to drop off some paperwork for some club they were part of, and when I opened the door, she was wearing like this loose white terrycloth bathrobe. And I mean that's it. It hung slightly open, enough so that you could actually compare the carpet with drapes. Boiiiinnnnnggg. I was ready to go TO TOWN when "Mommy, who is that at the front door?" piped in from the back. Shhhhfffffllop.

Anyway, back to the point of the whole thing, is that there was absolutely nothing she could have done to me, that I hadn't already visualized me doing to her, with intense raw animal passion. To paraphrase 2 Live Crew, I was like a dog in heat, a freak without warning.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
And if the story read "married male teacher gives beer and has sex with 18 year old female HS student", we would be OK with this?

I think not. This issue is power, not sex.
Click to expand...

No, that is your perception of it. The relationship may very well have been about sex.
 
Henning said:
No, that is your perception of it. The relationship may very well have been about sex.
Click to expand...

In this particular instance, it was obviously about sex. Somebody just didn't have enough brains to keep their mouth shut about it for a while.

The broader point is this type of legislation is to deter sexual exploitation of students on the basis of power. If Mrs. Price knew she was risking a sex crime record, she know doubt would have kept her creamy thighs to herself.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the broader point that the legislation is too broad if this situation is considered a sex crime?
 
cowman said:
Isn't the broader point that the legislation is too broad if this situation is considered a sex crime?
Click to expand...

That's a fair question.

From the article:

Under Pennsylvania law, Leiseth seems to have jumped the gun on the deadline for teacher-student sex by just a few days. She now faces charges of institutional sexual assault – a third-degree felony – because the students had not yet officially graduated.

What the penalties entail for third degree felony institutional sexual assault are, and how they compare to, say, statutory rape or other more heinous sex crime, I have no idea. But apparently the good people of PA have strong opinions on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Gary F said:
Fine. Fire the teacher, revoke her certificate but criminal charger are insane.
Click to expand...

Something tells me this is a case where the prosectors is getting a vicarious thrill by pushing it.

I've often thought the Salem witch "prosecutors" saw their crusade as an excuse to strip helpless women, in the imaginary search for devilish signs on their bodies, then had them killed out of a guilty conscience.
 
My daughter is a newly minted high school teacher. According to her, one of the "very bad things" that you can do is get caught with a student in this kind of situation. Even if criminal charges aren't pursued, it pretty much means your entire teaching career is over.
 
Matthew said:
My daughter is a newly minted high school teacher. According to her, one of the "very bad things" that you can do is get caught with a student in this kind of situation. Even if criminal charges aren't pursued, it pretty much means your entire teaching career is over.
Click to expand...

In many of the 'girl teacher with boy student' I see the teacher as more of a victim than the student. Of course, 17 year old boys will screw anything that moves or doesn't move, to fall back on one of them for entertainment suggests a pathologically low self esteem.
 
Henning said:
Why is everyone always so hung up on who has sex with whom?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. This country is filled with far too many people who concern themselves with things that are none of their business, especially sex.
 
weilke said:
In many of the 'girl teacher with boy student' I see the teacher as more of a victim than the student. Of course, 17 year old boys will screw anything that moves or doesn't move, to fall back on one of them for entertainment suggests a pathologically low self esteem.
Click to expand...

That is how I view it.

EDIT: Although, having possibly been such a "target" at age 17, I would HOPE teach didn't do so out of low self esteem!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top