Nebuchanezzar
Banned
it's not mouldy. UR MOULDLY!
omg post pix of urself iron
omg post pix of urself iron
Should teachers be able to have sexual relations with consenting students? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nebuchanezzar
- Start date
dance2urownbeat
Ridiculously Good Looking
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 443
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
there was a student/teacher relationship at my school which was all over the news. it was really gross considering the two involved. i think it began when she was either in year 11/12 so over the age of consent, but it had pretty dire consequences for both of them. she was expelled i think and he lost his job.
i think if they were that serious they should've just wait til the student was out of school, then go crazy. it was weird for everyone else at school really, seeing them together around the school or having that teacher and such. and surely it would've been weird for them knowing that everyone was talking about them.
i think if they were that serious they should've just wait til the student was out of school, then go crazy. it was weird for everyone else at school really, seeing them together around the school or having that teacher and such. and surely it would've been weird for them knowing that everyone was talking about them.
this haha. they are hot.
i don't really see the problem with doctor/patient if they are both adults.
roar84eighty
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
yup
Funky Monk
Member
I can't see how a student having a relationship with a teacher can be beneficial for other students in the school/class. I really only see it as being detrimental, particularly when the relationship goes pear-shaped, given the piss-poor maturity levels of most students.
Distractions, bias, erosion of authority blah blah blah.
Distractions, bias, erosion of authority blah blah blah.
It's definitely one of the big don'ts, especially within some fields (e.g. psychiatry --> goodbye licence).
Ben Netanyahu
Banned
I don't see how you having a relationship with a woman/man can benefit me, or anyone else.
BAN IT!
BAN IT!
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
As long as the kid is of legal consensual age, I personally don't give a shit.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
fuck man, it's a school teacher not a... idk ... what's unethical about banging a hot teenager.
x.christina
I am actually a cat
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,810
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
- Uni Grad
- 2016
I'm still in love with my English teacher... *sigh*
Serius
Beyond Godlike
should psychologists be allowed to date their clients?
MaNiElla
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,853
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
No, I personally think that it is too risky, especially that psychologists know all their patients vulnerabilities....and some of them may take advantage of that.
But, I think that it is totally ok if it was a GP, dentist, etc...
As for school teachers, I think that its a big no no. Teachers are like parent figures for many students, I think its totally inappropriate for teachers to have any sexual relationships with their students.
It should be ok for uni lecturers and tutors I reckon...i guess students are abit more mature/independent and dont rely much on them, as they do on their school teachers.
MaNiElla
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,853
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
awww, how romantic
Ben Netanyahu
Banned
Everyone takes advantage of other people's vulnerabilities. It is a part of life. Man up, comrade.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
The Current Legislation
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 73
Sexual intercourse with child between 16 and 18 under special care
73 Sexual intercourse with child between 16 and 18 under special care
(1) Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who:
(a) is under his or her special care, and
(b) is of or above the age of 16 years and under the age of 17 years,
is liable to imprisonment for 8 years.
(2) Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who:
(a) is under his or her special care, and
(b) is of or above the age of 17 years and under the age of 18 years,
is liable to imprisonment for 4 years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person ( "the victim") is under the special care of another person ( "the offender") if, and only if:
(a) the offender is the step-parent, guardian or foster parent of the victim, or
(b) the offender is a school teacher and the victim is a pupil of the offender, or
(c) the offender has an established personal relationship with the victim in connection with the provision of religious, sporting, musical or other instruction to the victim, or
(d) the offender is a custodial officer of an institution of which the victim is an inmate, or
(e) the offender is a health professional and the victim is a patient of the health professional.
(4) Any person who attempts to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable to the penalty provided for the commission of the offence.
(5) A person does not commit an offence under this section if the person and the other person to whom the charge relates were, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, married to each other.
Some Basic Distinctions-
The legislation aims to protect those who, despite being over the legal age of consent, remain under a fiduciary duty of care with an adult, in so that the adult holds a significant position of power as to influence the child emotionally. Hence, we are generally discussing long-term relationships- most commonly that between a student/teacher, but not restricted to that between student/extracurricular instructor (coach, music teacher etc) or a health professional (so yes, this should answer the Doctor argument raised earlier).
Since we are assuming the child is past the age of consent (16 here in NSW), the normal offence under ss66(A) and ss66(C) of the Crimes Act are irrelevant. Even with non-consensual sex, the special relationship referred to in this legislation gives a higher penalty to teachers who undertake sex with children under 16, in comparison to those who do not hold this relationship-
For a look at the statutory penalties- http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/ll_pdo.nsf/pages/PDO_sexoffencespenaltiestable
Justification for this Legislation- Why is it bad?
The Courts like to talk of ‘Carnal Knowledge’. It’s definition is rather unclear, as its often used a simple legal euphemism for unlawful sex throughout various jurisdictions. I think though in this context, the legislators had in mind the manipulative, often cunning intent of an offender to misconstrue the limits of their power-relationship in order to go beyond an emotional bond, for their own sexual gratification.
I think that the legislation bears in mind the length of the student-teacher relationship. Say the relationship began when a 13 year old girl was in year 7- at this stage it was purely a normal, academically based student/teacher relationship.
However, over the coming years the teacher can emotionally manipulate the child through their position of authority and build an attraction towards them (take into account, the child through these years is still largely in a developmental stage). I believe it was then deemed wrong by the legislators that upon her 16th birthday, the teacher makes this a sexual relationship. Had the child never went to school, she would never have slept with this man. It was purely through those earlier years of cunning emotional interplay by the teacher that such an event unfolded.
Yes, this is a simplistic example but I've been told of many cases where this actually occurred. A teacher has a special relationship- not only built upon power, but largely on trust and at times friendship. So often, if a child lacks a supportive home environment (not necessarily though), they may feel safe confiding emotionally within teachers, particularly through their earlier teenage years. To many degrees this student-teacher relationship can be a wonderful and supportive aid to the child's academic and emotional development. However, within the boundaries of this relationship there is a dire of element of trust- quite possibly an exchange of trust between the parent of the child and the state. In many ways, this could be thought of as a silent contract that is broken upon sexual advances by the teacher. Teacher’s undertake their position with full knowledge of this and the majority would never consider breaking this agreement.
Sadly though, there are a few teachers who are willing to over step the boundaries for their own sexual gratification- this is why such legislation is in place.
When the ‘past relationship does not exist?
The main rebuttal that will come in here- and I gladly accept- is what about a student over 16 etc moving to a new school where this past relationship was not present? Firstly, despite being over the age of consent, until the age of 18, the law still sees the victim as a child. Obviously, not every ‘child’ is of the same emotional development, and the legitimacy of this is debatable, but at some level we must set an arbitrary standard. The practicality and subjectivity concerning the motion of determining a ‘child’ through a series of psychological tests is ridiculous. Now, as we see in the legislation, the penalty does go down given the child’s age going up (at 16 years, the penalty is up to 8 yrs prison compared to 4 yrs prison if the child is 17 yrs old). This can arguably reflect the recognition of a child’s emotional development, yet it still does not bring it full circle. There still remains that level of implied trust within the relationship, a level that the teacher is fully aware of. Even if a prolonged past relationship is not present; the current relationship in itself allows the teacher good time to spark a sexual attraction with the child, given the amount of time they spend together. If the teacher were not employed as a teacher, they would never be given such opportunities to form bonds with teenagers and hence a sexual relationship can be traced back to the position itself. If a teacher really does have a yearning for teenagers aged 16-18, then they should not have become a teacher. The law allows them to go out and meet 16/17 yr olds who are not their students, but the lack of a close relationship (which they get through their employment) would generally mean that this would not be possible for them- the teenagers would have up their normal social walls/guards (which in many cases are lacking within the student/teacher paradigm). Hence it is the power given in a ‘Special Duty of Care’ relationship that allows direct sexual manipulation, and the Courts see it as reasonably foreseeable that such sexual acts would not occur given the absence of such a relationship.
Secondly, there are of course the issues which have been raised, purely based on high school practicality. Aside from the ethical/moral concerns of a community, schools would not function as effectively if students/teachers were openly in sexual relationships. We are forgetting firstly that teachers are their primarily to do the job (teach, nothing more) and students to learn. There would be large scale conflicts of interest, not to mention the implications of favoritism, teachers maintaining objectivity in marking, quite possibly an encouragement of a lack of discipline (if it was widely known you could sleep with teachers), teacher privacy issues etc
Male Students-
For those interested, it was the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 which actually made this legislation gender-neutral. Prior to this, both offences ss73 (1) and ss73 (2) were applied only to girls. I think this raises some interesting arguments in concern to the ‘power-disparity’ raised earlier between a 17 yr old male student and a female teacher.
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 73
Sexual intercourse with child between 16 and 18 under special care
73 Sexual intercourse with child between 16 and 18 under special care
(1) Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who:
(a) is under his or her special care, and
(b) is of or above the age of 16 years and under the age of 17 years,
is liable to imprisonment for 8 years.
(2) Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who:
(a) is under his or her special care, and
(b) is of or above the age of 17 years and under the age of 18 years,
is liable to imprisonment for 4 years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person ( "the victim") is under the special care of another person ( "the offender") if, and only if:
(a) the offender is the step-parent, guardian or foster parent of the victim, or
(b) the offender is a school teacher and the victim is a pupil of the offender, or
(c) the offender has an established personal relationship with the victim in connection with the provision of religious, sporting, musical or other instruction to the victim, or
(d) the offender is a custodial officer of an institution of which the victim is an inmate, or
(e) the offender is a health professional and the victim is a patient of the health professional.
(4) Any person who attempts to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable to the penalty provided for the commission of the offence.
(5) A person does not commit an offence under this section if the person and the other person to whom the charge relates were, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, married to each other.
Some Basic Distinctions-
The legislation aims to protect those who, despite being over the legal age of consent, remain under a fiduciary duty of care with an adult, in so that the adult holds a significant position of power as to influence the child emotionally. Hence, we are generally discussing long-term relationships- most commonly that between a student/teacher, but not restricted to that between student/extracurricular instructor (coach, music teacher etc) or a health professional (so yes, this should answer the Doctor argument raised earlier).
Since we are assuming the child is past the age of consent (16 here in NSW), the normal offence under ss66(A) and ss66(C) of the Crimes Act are irrelevant. Even with non-consensual sex, the special relationship referred to in this legislation gives a higher penalty to teachers who undertake sex with children under 16, in comparison to those who do not hold this relationship-
For a look at the statutory penalties- http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/ll_pdo.nsf/pages/PDO_sexoffencespenaltiestable
Justification for this Legislation- Why is it bad?
The Courts like to talk of ‘Carnal Knowledge’. It’s definition is rather unclear, as its often used a simple legal euphemism for unlawful sex throughout various jurisdictions. I think though in this context, the legislators had in mind the manipulative, often cunning intent of an offender to misconstrue the limits of their power-relationship in order to go beyond an emotional bond, for their own sexual gratification.
I think that the legislation bears in mind the length of the student-teacher relationship. Say the relationship began when a 13 year old girl was in year 7- at this stage it was purely a normal, academically based student/teacher relationship.
However, over the coming years the teacher can emotionally manipulate the child through their position of authority and build an attraction towards them (take into account, the child through these years is still largely in a developmental stage). I believe it was then deemed wrong by the legislators that upon her 16th birthday, the teacher makes this a sexual relationship. Had the child never went to school, she would never have slept with this man. It was purely through those earlier years of cunning emotional interplay by the teacher that such an event unfolded.
Yes, this is a simplistic example but I've been told of many cases where this actually occurred. A teacher has a special relationship- not only built upon power, but largely on trust and at times friendship. So often, if a child lacks a supportive home environment (not necessarily though), they may feel safe confiding emotionally within teachers, particularly through their earlier teenage years. To many degrees this student-teacher relationship can be a wonderful and supportive aid to the child's academic and emotional development. However, within the boundaries of this relationship there is a dire of element of trust- quite possibly an exchange of trust between the parent of the child and the state. In many ways, this could be thought of as a silent contract that is broken upon sexual advances by the teacher. Teacher’s undertake their position with full knowledge of this and the majority would never consider breaking this agreement.
Sadly though, there are a few teachers who are willing to over step the boundaries for their own sexual gratification- this is why such legislation is in place.
When the ‘past relationship does not exist?
The main rebuttal that will come in here- and I gladly accept- is what about a student over 16 etc moving to a new school where this past relationship was not present? Firstly, despite being over the age of consent, until the age of 18, the law still sees the victim as a child. Obviously, not every ‘child’ is of the same emotional development, and the legitimacy of this is debatable, but at some level we must set an arbitrary standard. The practicality and subjectivity concerning the motion of determining a ‘child’ through a series of psychological tests is ridiculous. Now, as we see in the legislation, the penalty does go down given the child’s age going up (at 16 years, the penalty is up to 8 yrs prison compared to 4 yrs prison if the child is 17 yrs old). This can arguably reflect the recognition of a child’s emotional development, yet it still does not bring it full circle. There still remains that level of implied trust within the relationship, a level that the teacher is fully aware of. Even if a prolonged past relationship is not present; the current relationship in itself allows the teacher good time to spark a sexual attraction with the child, given the amount of time they spend together. If the teacher were not employed as a teacher, they would never be given such opportunities to form bonds with teenagers and hence a sexual relationship can be traced back to the position itself. If a teacher really does have a yearning for teenagers aged 16-18, then they should not have become a teacher. The law allows them to go out and meet 16/17 yr olds who are not their students, but the lack of a close relationship (which they get through their employment) would generally mean that this would not be possible for them- the teenagers would have up their normal social walls/guards (which in many cases are lacking within the student/teacher paradigm). Hence it is the power given in a ‘Special Duty of Care’ relationship that allows direct sexual manipulation, and the Courts see it as reasonably foreseeable that such sexual acts would not occur given the absence of such a relationship.
Secondly, there are of course the issues which have been raised, purely based on high school practicality. Aside from the ethical/moral concerns of a community, schools would not function as effectively if students/teachers were openly in sexual relationships. We are forgetting firstly that teachers are their primarily to do the job (teach, nothing more) and students to learn. There would be large scale conflicts of interest, not to mention the implications of favoritism, teachers maintaining objectivity in marking, quite possibly an encouragement of a lack of discipline (if it was widely known you could sleep with teachers), teacher privacy issues etc
Male Students-
For those interested, it was the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 which actually made this legislation gender-neutral. Prior to this, both offences ss73 (1) and ss73 (2) were applied only to girls. I think this raises some interesting arguments in concern to the ‘power-disparity’ raised earlier between a 17 yr old male student and a female teacher.
Last edited:
TylerDurden09
New Member
LOL, good post, i take it that ends the thread haha
No. It's completely unethical, a far more powerful and potentially harmful position than the teacher student relationship.
Reflecting on this thread, I don't think teacher/student relationships should be legislated against, but it should definetly be acceptable for schools and teacher accreditation organisations to set rules regarding relationships, such that it may affect their business and reputation.
The same applies in the example of psychologists above. It's not legislated against (afaik), and shouldn't be so, but the accreditation body for psychologists deems it grounds for revoking licences, and fair enough too, with harm it could potentially cause to the reputation of their profession.
Basically, the free market does it all. Businesses and accreditation bodies will prohibit these sort of potentially exploitative relationships because to allow them could be severely harmful to their reputation and returns. The right for schools to dismiss teachers for this reason must be upheld, but there's no need for compulsory legislation.
The same applies in the example of psychologists above. It's not legislated against (afaik), and shouldn't be so, but the accreditation body for psychologists deems it grounds for revoking licences, and fair enough too, with harm it could potentially cause to the reputation of their profession.
Basically, the free market does it all. Businesses and accreditation bodies will prohibit these sort of potentially exploitative relationships because to allow them could be severely harmful to their reputation and returns. The right for schools to dismiss teachers for this reason must be upheld, but there's no need for compulsory legislation.
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Nah, doesn't really. The thread is for dicussing whether it should be legal, not whether it is legal.
kokodamonkey
Active Member
Only after they are no longer their students.