Teacher weds ex-student after prison time for raping him

icknay · Post by **icknay** » May 22, 2005, 12:59 am

Oh the twists and turns that life hands us...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/21/letour ... index.html

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 22, 2005, 2:33 am

Wrong forum.

This is funny though.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 22, 2005, 2:37 am

The guy pictured in that article looks older than 22. The lady looks like she would have been a pretty hot teacher back in the day.

He never finished high school so it's probably a good thing he's back with a former teacher.

There seems to be a lot of older women sexing boys in the news. New fetish? Screw the school girl outsifts. A school boy outfit these days might be the way to score.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » May 22, 2005, 10:57 am

Wow...Angus Young really let himself go...

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » May 22, 2005, 1:02 pm

Angus should find him and kill him.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 22, 2005, 3:23 pm

Rape, yeah right...

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » May 22, 2005, 3:37 pm

Statutory rape counts as rape! Pretty fucked up for an "adult" to have sex with a 13 year old.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 22, 2005, 3:40 pm

Find me one straight 13 year old boy who isn't going to want that to happen and I will show you a liar!

Kithyen · Post by **Kithyen** » May 22, 2005, 4:16 pm

Where were all the hot sex starved teachers when I was 13?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » May 22, 2005, 4:30 pm

it wasn't rape and it's a shame she had to spend 7 years in jail. i hope they make it, but they both need to get a job.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 22, 2005, 9:59 pm

I can't believe that was 9 years ago. I feel so old.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 22, 2005, 11:36 pm

Fash wrote:it wasn't rape and it's a shame she had to spend 7 years in jail. i hope they make it, but they both need to get a job.

what if it was a 35 year old male teacher fucking a 13 year old girl he was teaching?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 22, 2005, 11:39 pm

It would depend if she consented.

I agree there is a double standard. Although I remember being 13 and wishing some absurd hot teachers in our school were a bit more friendly

Although you can get 13 year olds that are still just babies and some that are like 18 year olds.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 22, 2005, 11:42 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Fash wrote:it wasn't rape and it's a shame she had to spend 7 years in jail. i hope they make it, but they both need to get a job.
what if it was a 35 year old male teacher fucking a 13 year old girl he was teaching?

It would not be okay. It is a double standard. I think most people recognize. In fact you do, but asked the question anyway as if you didn't know the fuckign answer anyway.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » May 22, 2005, 11:53 pm

I certainly agree that it is a double standard, but

At my old high school, we had a teacher, probably 35-40, get busted for fucking a student. The relationship started when she was a freshman, and continued until he got busted when she was a junior.

He got fired, but as far as I know he hasn't been arrested. He's certainly not in jail.

So it is a double standard to say it's OK for a female teacher to do it but not a male, but I think it's still fair to say that seven plus years in jail is a little excessive.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » May 23, 2005, 12:25 am

It's disgusting for any 35 year old to be with a 13 year old regardless of the situation. The fact that as a teacher, she was supposed to have been a rolemodel and was trusted by parents and the school system to take care of the children in her "care" and that she abused it, is not only grotesque but also disturbing.

It's not ok for an adult to fuck a child - and the last time I checked, a 13 year old is still a child. I'd fucking bet money the kid didn't even have all his pubes yet.

If is was my pre-pubescent son that a 35 year old was getting off on, 7 years would seem rather light.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 23, 2005, 12:32 am

Young teacher, the subject
Of schoolboy fantasy
He wants her so badly
Knows what he wants to be
Inside him there's longing
This boy's an open page
Book marking - he's so close now
This boy is half her age

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me
Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me

His friends are so jealous
You know how bad boys get
Sometimes it's not so easy
To be the teacher's pet
Temptation, frustration
So bad it makes her cry
Wet bus stop, he's waiting
Her car is warm and dry

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me
Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me

Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staffroom
The accusations fly
It's no use, she sees him
She starts to shake and cough
Just like the old woman in
That book by Nabakov

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me
Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » May 23, 2005, 12:24 pm

Nick wrote:It would depend if she consented.

Fash wrote:it wasn't rape and it's a shame she had to spend 7 years in jail. i hope they make it, but they both need to get a job.

It's second degree rape in Washington state to have sex with a child between the ages of 12-14 if you are 36 months older than the child. Intent is irrelevant. Second degree rape is still a felony.

What a stupid ho.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 23, 2005, 12:36 pm

What I was mainly looking at was the fact the "child who was raped omg put her in jail for 7 years" is in fact now married to the women who "raped" him.

There are different degrees of rape, and this isn't really one of them compared to what can happen in the world.

Personally I still hold the fact that if someone consented then it isn't really rape. Although I wholely agree a 13 year old could be manipulated into a position by a much older, more sly adult. Which is fucking evil.

However, an 18 year old guy in Ireland could be charged with rape just for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Which is just fucking retarded.

I agree 13 is very young and I am in no way defending rapists or child abusers, all my point is that rape is not necessarily rape just because the government calls it that.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » May 23, 2005, 12:45 pm

teacher sexing up a child wrote: Letourneau told King she did not know having a sexual relationship with Fualaau was a felony.

"It just -- I knew it just didn't -- just wasn't normal," she said. "It's not that I wouldn't have still had feelings, or that he wouldn't still have feelings, but ... I don't know how anyone does something knowing something's a felony."

She said she wouldn't have done it if she knew it was a felony, and admitted to knowing it "wasn't normal". So it's ok to break the law a little, but not a lot? The fact that she said this should be enough to send up a red flag.

a_anon_reporter_01 wrote: She served six months and was released on probation, but was ordered to serve her full sentence after she and Fualaau were found together in a van, in violation of a no-contact order.

She didn't have to serve seven years. She only served six months and then violated her probation, by going back for some more. This seems to invalidate her claim that she wouldn't have done it if she knew it was a felony. After serving six months you would think she understood it was a felony.

Right, wrong or indifferent it was against the law and if you do something thats against the law, regardless of if you feel it's a fair law, you take chances with getting the punishment.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » May 23, 2005, 12:49 pm

seems like she could have saved herself a lot of trouble by just coping with the "no contact" order until he was 18. she has 4 children with her ex-husband that had to deal with having a mother in prison for 7 years. pretty selfish of her imo.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 23, 2005, 1:00 pm

The couple is registered at Toys R Us

cid · Post by **cid** » May 23, 2005, 1:06 pm

Voronwë wrote:The couple is registered at Toys R Us

Their honeymoon is going to be at Neverland.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 23, 2005, 3:03 pm

Haha!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 23, 2005, 8:20 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It would not be okay. It is a double standard. I think most people recognize. In fact you do, but asked the question anyway as if you didn't know the fuckign answer anyway.

and yet you fly into a childish rage every time a black person makes fun of black people or white people.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 23, 2005, 10:34 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It would not be okay. It is a double standard. I think most people recognize. In fact you do, but asked the question anyway as if you didn't know the fuckign answer anyway.
and yet you fly into a childish rage every time a black person makes fun of black people or white people.

Good point. It does bother me that blacks can say nigger 1000 times a day yet would go homocidal if a white man said it.

Tinkin Tankem · Post by **Tinkin Tankem** » May 23, 2005, 11:07 pm

I would say the best way to relate that to something you may understand or relate to, would be a case such as this. It is not uncommon for one sibling to pick on the other, for fun, as a joke, because they're bored or whatever ever reason. You could put name calling, hitting, pranking and damn near anything into the above. Now myself, I've picked on my little brothers, gave them a hard time, and every now and then gotten to a little scuffle with one of them. That being said, if I ever saw any of them in any dangerous, threatening, or any type of circumstance that made them uncomfortable... well, let's just say you wouldn't want to see it.

From what I can infer. Black people do feel different from the general white people. Society tells them to and there are obvious physical differences. If they feel that calling each other nigga or something to that extent. I say let them. I could care less. It's not hurting me to not be able to refer to someone in a term that they feel belongs to their race. The only problem that I have is that it brings more of a wall and does less to get rid of the barrier that has been created.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 24, 2005, 12:40 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It would not be okay. It is a double standard. I think most people recognize. In fact you do, but asked the question anyway as if you didn't know the fuckign answer anyway.
and yet you fly into a childish rage every time a black person makes fun of black people or white people.
Good point. It does bother me that blacks can say nigger 1000 times a day yet would go homocidal if a white man said it.

if you look at history "the white man" sure as hell abused the word nigger....either way, why would you want to be using the word nigger in public (or at all) anyways?
if someone other then a spanish person used the word "spic" in my presence regardless of intention it would piss me off as well, its more an issue of courtesy then anything else....such as if your overweight you can refer to yourself or even other overweight friends as fatasses, but try calling aunt sue or your co worker a fatass and it usually wont go over too well...also guys brag about there "sexual encounters" with random chicks all the time, but if someone you knew were talking about how they "worked your daughters/sisters/best friends ass hard" last night you would be pissed as fuck

Fash · Post by **Fash** » May 24, 2005, 1:18 am

abused it? we created it! they stole it!

we wants it back, niggers!

cid · Post by **cid** » May 24, 2005, 10:55 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It would not be okay. It is a double standard. I think most people recognize. In fact you do, but asked the question anyway as if you didn't know the fuckign answer anyway.
and yet you fly into a childish rage every time a black person makes fun of black people or white people.
Good point. It does bother me that blacks can say nigger 1000 times a day yet would go homocidal if a white man said it.

They have an all black entertainment channel. If we did it would be racial.

They have an Ebony magazine. If we had a Whitie magazine it would be racial.

It all leads to the double standard stated earlier in this thread.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 24, 2005, 11:33 am

cid wrote:They have an all black entertainment channel. If we did it would be racial.

http://www.cmt.com/

They have an Ebony magazine. If we had a Whitie magazine it would be racial.

http://www.racingfanmagazine.com/racingfan/

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » May 24, 2005, 11:37 am

miir wrote:
cid wrote:They have an all black entertainment channel. If we did it would be racial.
http://www.cmt.com/

They have an Ebony magazine. If we had a Whitie magazine it would be racial.
http://www.racingfanmagazine.com/racingfan/

So what Miir is trying to say is that he likes country music and racing cars.

cid · Post by **cid** » May 24, 2005, 11:58 am

No, he is just a fucking dumb ass.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 24, 2005, 11:58 am

cid wrote:
They have an all black entertainment channel. If we did it would be racial.

They have an Ebony magazine. If we had a Whitie magazine it would be racial.

It all leads to the double standard stated earlier in this thread.

the word you are looking for is RACIST!!!

also "double standards" imply that othewise all conditions between the two parties are identical. They are not. There was not a several hundred year history of white people being bought, sold, and treated as property followed by another hundred years of institutionalized racism - the effects of which will not be completely absent even as a few more generations pass.

You are trying to frame an argument from flawed premises.

the reason "they" have an "all black entertainment channel", is because mainstream culture (dominated by both white viewers as well as white owned and controlled corporations) have 499 channels.

the above statement is more or less rhetoric, but there is a grain of truth.

The real reason there is a "BET", or a "WE", or "Telemundo" is the same reason there is an "ESPN", a "CMT", an "MTV", a "CNN", and a "Fox News Channel".

THere is a massively diverse television audience out there, and as long as there is a big enough slice of people willing to watch a particular type of programming, a company will be able to sell advertising, and the channel will be profitable, therefore it will exist.

In case you didn't know, this is the United States, and we have a more-or-less free market. If a group of investors want to get together and make a magazine that services the African-American demographic, then that is absolutely in keeping with the central tenants of our society.

It isn't like they are asking for a government subsidy to make "Jet" profitable. They sell advertising just like "People" does.

Its simply targeted marketing.

"Ebony" does not exist for some conspiracy reason. "Ebony" exists because there were people who wanted to create it, and it has survived because there is a market for consumers of that type of media.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 24, 2005, 12:40 pm

cid wrote:No, he is just a fucking dumb ass.

No, I was trying to make a point... that you are apparently too dense to understand.

Country Music and NASCAR are 2 institutions that are dominated by white americans. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone of any other ethnicity on either of those media outlets.

Do you hear people whining that CMT or NASCAR are 'racial' organisations?

These so-called 'racial' channels/magazines have far more non-ethnic content than the media outlets with less easily identifiable (racial) names have ethnic content.

Every television network prior to the 1970s had virtually 100% 'nigger-free' programing.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » May 24, 2005, 12:48 pm

miir wrote:

Every television network prior to the 1970s had virtually 100% 'nigger-free' programing.

Just the way you liked it you KKK Canadian Racist!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 24, 2005, 12:54 pm

Sylvos wrote: Just the way you liked it you KKK Canadian Racist!

owned

cid · Post by **cid** » May 24, 2005, 1:55 pm

Voronwë,

I know what you are saying, and I do agree. I am just saying if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be looked at differently.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 24, 2005, 1:56 pm

and it would be right to look at it differently.

because it would be different.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » May 24, 2005, 1:58 pm

Voronwë wrote:and it would be right to look at it differently.

because it would be different.

Pipe down ya hippie whitebread!

cid · Post by **cid** » May 24, 2005, 2:03 pm

So if I created a station and named it, All White Entertainment". Played Mork and mindy, Giligan's island, Dukes of Hazzrd, The Brady Bunch and Leave it to Beaver re-runs it would be wrong?

Or just the name, "All White Channel".

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » May 24, 2005, 2:08 pm

You can't play Leave it to Beaver on an all White Network.

Why?

Cause its Black & White.

hahahahahahaahahahahhahaahhahhaahahhah

cid · Post by **cid** » May 24, 2005, 2:09 pm

Voronwë wrote: There was not a several hundred year history of white people being bought, sold, and treated as property followed by another hundred years of institutionalized racism - the effects of which will not be completely absent even as a few more generations pass.

So that is my fault?

You might as well blame the Indians for not fighting us off harder.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 24, 2005, 2:13 pm

cid wrote:I am just saying if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be looked at differently.

I don't think you get it at all, Cid.
The shoe, so to speak, is on both feet.

There are specialty media outlets that cater to every demographic.

CMT caters to an audience that is almost exclusively caucasian .
BET caters to a 'black' audience but has a far more ethnically diverse demographic.
H&G network caters do old people while MTV aims for a younger demographic.

There are media outlets for democrats, asians, christians, jews, hispanics, muslims, republicans... you name it!

Now if there was a cable channel that specifically excluded negros (because they were negros), people would raise a stink.... but the same would happen if BET excluded non-blacks from it's programming.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 24, 2005, 2:14 pm

cid wrote:So if I created a station and named it, All White Entertainment". Played Mork and mindy, Giligan's island, Dukes of Hazzrd, The Brady Bunch and Leave it to Beaver re-runs it would be wrong?

Or just the name, "All White Channel".

TV Land already exists.

So does WGN, WOR, WTBS and about 10 other channels who show (or showed in TBS' case) exactly those types of shows in reruns.

But yeah you'd have a hard time selling advertising on "AWC".

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » May 24, 2005, 2:15 pm

Voronwë wrote: There was not a several hundred year history of white people being bought, sold, and treated as property followed by another hundred years of institutionalized racism - the effects of which will not be completely absent even as a few more generations pass.

Actually you are right, there are several thousand years of white people being bought, sold and treated as property. Welcome to Europe from about 2000 BC til 1700 AD, not to mention whatever the Mongols didn't kill they brought back to China and had themselves some nice white and byzantine slaves.

cid · Post by **cid** » May 24, 2005, 2:18 pm

Correct,

These shows do exist and play on different stations. I am just talking about a name of a station. Whites can not have a station called, All White Entertainment", we have to sugar coat it. Where they do not. That to me is a double standard. That is all I was trying to say.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2005, 2:21 pm

If a group of white people came out with a line of clothing called FUBU (For Us By Us) there would be riots and looting in da streets.

The GAP is pretty much all whitey clothing but they don't have a discriminating name, unless women with tight vaginas feel offended by it.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 24, 2005, 2:21 pm

cid wrote:So if I created a station and named it, All White Entertainment". Played Mork and mindy, Giligan's island, Dukes of Hazzrd, The Brady Bunch and Leave it to Beaver re-runs it would be wrong?

Or just the name, "All White Channel".

Yeah, play only shows from back when the networks were too afraid to put negros on tv screens.

Even in the 70s, you could count, on one (well maybe two) hands, the number of TV series that had visible minorities. Diff'rent Strokes and The Jeffersons were trailblazers for 'non whites' starring in TV series.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 24, 2005, 2:32 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If a group of white people came out with a line of clothing called FUBU (For Us By Us) there would be riots and looting in da streets.

The GAP is pretty much all whitey clothing but they don't have a discriminating name, unless women with tight vaginas feel offended by it.

Actually I tend to agree. There is kind of a bad double standard as far as those things go.

But - I don't see anything wrong with a store directed at white folks. Just as long as it's not called the White Supremacy store or something along those lines.