25 year old women arrested for having sex with three students

[Mr. Krinkle]

Woman who pretended to be man to trick friend into sex jailed for eight years

Gayle Newland sentenced to eight years in prison for disguising her appearance and persuading woman to wear blindfold while they had sex

www.theguardian.com

i knew it!

 

[Foreigner]

If you're an adult having sex with a child, yeah, it's always abuse.

Even if it's a "willing" teenager there are good reasons you aren't expected to behave like adults until you're older. Because adults actually on the whole know better than you and have more power.

Besides, everyone knows the rule, handed down by God to Moses.

Half your age plus 7.

There isn't agreement about that, clearly.

There's no denying the power disparity between an adult and someone underage (note I don't use the word "child" because a 16 year old is not a child IMO), but that doesn't automatically mean abuse is happening. I don't agree with you.

These blanket statements are harmful to people like me who were precocious at a young age and I won't take on the narrative that I was abused. You can't tell someone what their life is. It doesn't work that way. I've actually been genuinely abused in my life and that situation was not one of those instances.

So how do you reconcile the general rule of "abuse" that you're applying with gaslighting someone's life experience like mine?

Who cares about Moses. He lived thousands of years ago when old men were marrying 8 year old girls.

 

[JessFR]

I would argue that it's possible to be an abuser even if your victim doesn't feel abused.

That's the whole point of statutory rape. That underage people can't be relied upon to give informed consent.

Even if one of them eventually feels they are giving retroactive consent, it's still wrong.

 

[SteeleyJ]

Atlier- I think part of it is I feel protective over kids and I feel like the male teacher sleeping with the female is predatory.
It is rather interesting tho that I suppose it could still be predatory with the female teacher with the male child and I just assume off the bat that the male child was up for it.

 

[JessFR]

Atlier- I think part of it is I feel protective over kids and I feel like the male teacher sleeping with the female is predatory.
It is rather interesting tho that I suppose it could still be predatory with the female teacher with the male child and I just assume off the bat that the male child was up for it.

Which is probably find if the male child really is and in the long run has no problems with it.

But that can't be predicted ahead of time, and that's why it's still abuse. Worse still is it makes things harder for men who actually were negatively effected.

 

[dalpat077]

You have GOT to be joking! You seen the upper acceptable limit for age 56 or thereabouts? She would have to be ABSOLUTELY LOADED I'll tell you!

 

[Foreigner]

I would argue that it's possible to be an abuser even if your victim doesn't feel abused.

That's the whole point of statutory rape. That underage people can't be relied upon to give informed consent.

Even if one of them eventually feels they are giving retroactive consent, it's still wrong.

I understand the intent of the law and actually support it, but we're not talking about laws. We're talking about morals, ethics, and psychology.

What you're saying is that, based on level of development, a minor can't be a reliable witness to their own experience. I think in some cases that's true, in others it's not, and generally our society does not care to parse which is which because that kind of equivocation may create consequential vulnerability to people who were abused. In other words, it's a slippery slope. I think that's why some in this thread are so defensive when I assert I wasn't abused, because they don't like where such conclusions could lead.

In my opinion, it can be parsed, just like any experience of a minor can be parsed. If they can't be relied upon to be witnesses of their sexual experiences, then they can't be relied upon for a lot of things. Yet we grant significant autonomy to minors to experiment with shaping their own narratives and realities. Sometimes minors don't know what's good for them and that's when parents and guardians decide for them. Other times they are capable of deciding.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in believing a minor when they say they were sexually abused, but not believing them when they said they weren't abused and actually had sexual enjoyment? If they're not reliable witnesses, then neither is valid... yet society endorses one view over the other in a blanket generalization. It's bullshit.

It seems that society has decided that, in the realm of sexuality, minors should not be able to experiment with sexual narratives and experiences. It's just always wrong and they should wait until they're more mature. And for now, they should just stay "as children". To me... this is sidestepping that a lot of minors ignore such rules and do it anyway. I did. Now I'm getting told I was abused? Another question that nobody is answering here, that I've asked twice now, is: is it okay that I also had sexual experiences with my 13 year old best friend? Repeatedly, over years. Is the power disparity between adult and minor what makes that kind of relationship so bad, yet it's okay if two 13 year olds are maybe doing something together that "they're not ready for"?

If people can decide retroactively that I was abused - people who weren't even there - then I can decide retroactively that I wasn't abused. I know what the law says. I'm talking about the actual psychology of it. I wasn't raped or abused. I know this to be true. People can say whatever they want contrary to that -- they are wrong. I actually thoroughly enjoyed the sexual mentorship and friendship of an older man. We had hot sex and he was really kind to me. I was friends with him into adulthood before I moved away. It wasn't a big deal. Unconventional, sure... but not abuse.

An analogy that I'm thinking of, which may be off base, is... in grade 10, I was taking some grade 12 courses, and one grade 9 course. I was ahead in some ways and behind in others. I think minors are that way in general. We peg people based on age in this concrete way - and I understand, we have to decide some variables or it's pure anarchy - but people advance at different levels in different areas. Not all 13 year olds are the same. I know 25 year old virgins, and I know people who lost their virginity at 14. The abuse narrative is a little too... convenient.

 

[JessFR]

You have GOT to be joking! You seen the upper acceptable limit for age 56 or thereabouts? She would have to be ABSOLUTELY LOADED I'll tell you!

Thou shalt not question thy God given relationship age limits.

 

[ageingpartyfiend]

Thou shalt not question thy God given relationship age limits.

God is really fucking old, Mary was 14 when he impregnated her no?

God needs to adhere to his own fucking rules!

 

[JessFR]

God needs to adhere to his own fucking rules!

Read your Bible, God breaks his own rules all the time.

I did the math though, you're right, if God is eternal, his age is infinity. Which makes his upper and lower dating limits also infinity. So you're right, God should only be able to date another God. :D

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Up until very recently, it was common practice and tradition for families to marry off their daughters as young as 11. The age of consent has only recently moved up to 16 for many states in the US. It use to be much younger for the purposes of arranged family marriage. Not much has really changed. The youngest age of consent is still 11 years old in Nigeria. Still, there are many other countries that pretty much keep the age of consent to around the time that a girl has her first period and is viable as a woman.

The King of Rock and Roll Elvis Presley started dating Priscilla when she was just 14 years old and he was 24. He was with her until he died. Don’t get me started with El Creepo Woody Allen that married his adopted daughter.

Where did this happen that girls as young as 11 or 12 get married?

I know it still happens in certain inner-Asian, Western-Asian/Middle Eastern, in Pakistan, and in certain African countries.

Girl, 13, rescued from 'forced marriage' in Pakistan

The teenager was allegedly abducted by a 44-year-old man who forcibly converted her to Islam and married her.

www.independent.co.uk

I have been doing geneaology since the late 1980s. I never found any marriage records for relatives or ancestors marrying that young in various European countries, or in North or South America. Everyone got married over age 18. There were lots of second marriages which is not surprising but it just makes me wonder if I will marry twice?

 

[JessFR]

Where did this happen that girls as young as 11 or 12 get married?

I know it still happens in certain inner-Asian, Western-Asian/Middle Eastern, in Pakistan, and in certain African countries.

Girl, 13, rescued from 'forced marriage' in Pakistan

The teenager was allegedly abducted by a 44-year-old man who forcibly converted her to Islam and married her.

www.independent.co.uk

I have been doing geneaology since the late 1980s. I never found any marriage records for relatives or ancestors marrying that young in various European countries, or in North or South America. Everyone got married over age 18. There were lots of second marriages which is not surprising but it just makes me wonder if I will marry twice?

Well to be fair, "very recently" could cover a pretty wide range.

 

[JessFR]

If Jesus was immaculately conceived, what was his genetics?

I mean, Mary was a woman, she literally doesn't have the genetic components on her own to produce a male offspring.

So Jesus can't be a clone of Mary, so who's other genetic material is it? Is it just a random approximation of a hypothetical Jewish man?

Was he even human?

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

I asked you your age at the time of the event of sexual relations with your teacher, you never answered, just trying to determine if it was pedophilia or not.

He was 12 or 13 based on what he wrote previously. It was sexual abuse, his teacher is a pedophile, and it was coercion/psychological abuse/manipulation as well as being harmful, but that is what always happens when a child or teen is sexually abused by a pedophile adult like his teacher.

 

[alasdairm]

Where did this happen that girls as young as 11 or 12 get married?

in new hampshire, u.s.a. in 2021 you can get married at age 13 with parental consent.

in massachusetts, u.s.a. in 2021 you can get married at age 12 with parental consent.

in california, u.s.a. in 2021 anybody under 18 can get married with parental consent and judicial review.

alasdair

 

[telepathetic]

He was 12 or 13 based on what he wrote previously. It was sexual abuse, his teacher is a pedophile, and it was coercion/psychological abuse/manipulation as well as being harmful, but that is what always happens when a child or teen is sexually abused by a pedophile adult like his teacher.

I got to agree with @PriestTheyCalledHim here though I never expected it. You were 12-13 and teacher was 30+? Totally a pedophile

 

[JessFR]

I understand the intent of the law and actually support it, but we're not talking about laws. We're talking about morals, ethics, and psychology.

What you're saying is that, based on level of development, a minor can't be a reliable witness to their own experience. I think in some cases that's true, in others it's not, and generally our society does not care to parse which is which because that kind of equivocation may create consequential vulnerability to people who were abused. In other words, it's a slippery slope. I think that's why some in this thread are so defensive when I assert I wasn't abused, because they don't like where such conclusions could lead.

In my opinion, it can be parsed, just like any experience of a minor can be parsed. If they can't be relied upon to be witnesses of their sexual experiences, then they can't be relied upon for a lot of things. Yet we grant significant autonomy to minors to experiment with shaping their own narratives and realities. Sometimes minors don't know what's good for them and that's when parents and guardians decide for them. Other times they are capable of deciding.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in believing a minor when they say they were sexually abused, but not believing them when they said they weren't abused and actually had sexual enjoyment? If they're not reliable witnesses, then neither is valid... yet society endorses one view over the other in a blanket generalization. It's bullshit.

It seems that society has decided that, in the realm of sexuality, minors should not be able to experiment with sexual narratives and experiences. It's just always wrong and they should wait until they're more mature. And for now, they should just stay "as children". To me... this is sidestepping that a lot of minors ignore such rules and do it anyway. I did. Now I'm getting told I was abused? Another question that nobody is answering here, that I've asked twice now, is: is it okay that I also had sexual experiences with my 13 year old best friend? Repeatedly, over years. Is the power disparity between adult and minor what makes that kind of relationship so bad, yet it's okay if two 13 year olds are maybe doing something together that "they're not ready for"?

If people can decide retroactively that I was abused - people who weren't even there - then I can decide retroactively that I wasn't abused. I know what the law says. I'm talking about the actual psychology of it. I wasn't raped or abused. I know this to be true. People can say whatever they want contrary to that -- they are wrong. I actually thoroughly enjoyed the sexual mentorship and friendship of an older man. We had hot sex and he was really kind to me. I was friends with him into adulthood before I moved away. It wasn't a big deal. Unconventional, sure... but not abuse.

An analogy that I'm thinking of, which may be off base, is... in grade 10, I was taking some grade 12 courses, and one grade 9 course. I was ahead in some ways and behind in others. I think minors are that way in general. We peg people based on age in this concrete way - and I understand, we have to decide some variables or it's pure anarchy - but people advance at different levels in different areas. Not all 13 year olds are the same. I know 25 year old virgins, and I know people who lost their virginity at 14. The abuse narrative is a little too... convenient.

Let's say man A attacks and rapes woman B.

Let's say, somehow, against any sense or judgement or comprehension or how this makes sense, she forgives her attacker, falls in love with him, marries him, and forgives him.

She's of sound mind, this may sound absurd but it's really just a crazy hypothetical to make a point.

Even in this hypothetical, is the man not still morally and legally guilty of a crime?

I say yes. I say the forgiveness of the victim isn't sufficient to make it not a crime in a legal or ethical sense.

This isn't a perfect analogy. In this version the victim does at some point feel victimized, but there are also people who don't initially feel victimized who feel victimized later on.

The only question of consequence in my view, is could the teenager in a situation like yours, fully consent to the situation? I say no.

I say, and the law says, and I think in general most people probably say, it's wrong.

My argument is not that you should see yourself as a victim or feel abused. If you don't you don't, and that's fine. What I'm saying is it doesn't make the perpetrator not still in the wrong.

The law is not written for your specific circumstance but for the average anyone. And it's in their interests that the laws are for.

I submit that these adult women sleeping with teenage boys can't possibly know if they will retroactively consent. And that the power differential and age difference makes their consent legally and morally invalid.

You can be a victim in the abstract moral and legal ethics sense without feeling victimized in a personal sense.

That's the argument I'm making.

Another, also problematic hypothetical I'm gonna bring up anyway, what if you make someone play russian roulette, and they win (as in, they don't die). Is the act more or less fundamentally wrong because of how it turned out? Again I say no.

 

[Foreigner]

Let's say man A attacks and rapes woman B.

Let's say, somehow, against any sense or judgement or comprehension or how this makes sense, she forgives her attacker, falls in love with him, marries him, and forgives him.

She's of sound mind, this may sound absurd but it's really just a crazy hypothetical to make a point.

Even in this hypothetical, is the man not still morally and legally guilty of a crime?

I say yes. I say the forgiveness of the victim isn't sufficient to make it not a crime in a legal or ethical sense.

This isn't a perfect analogy. In this version the victim does at some point feel victimized, but there are also people who don't initially feel victimized who feel victimized later on.

The only question of consequence in my view, is could the teenager in a situation like yours, fully consent to the situation? I say no.

I say, and the law says, and I think in general most people probably say, it's wrong.

My argument is not that you should see yourself as a victim or feel abused. If you don't you don't, and that's fine. What I'm saying is it doesn't make the perpetrator not still in the wrong.

The law is not written for your specific circumstance but for the average anyone. And it's in their interests that the laws are for.

I submit that these adult women sleeping with teenage boys can't possibly know if they will retroactively consent. And that the power differential and age difference makes their consent legally and morally invalid.

You can be a victim in the abstract moral and legal ethics sense without feeling victimized in a personal sense.

That's the argument I'm making.

Another, also problematic hypothetical I'm gonna bring up anyway, what if you make someone play russian roulette, and they win (as in, they don't die). Is the act more or less fundamentally wrong because of how it turned out? Again I say no.

You make good points, thank you. To the first point... attack and rape are a different category than the teacher and the male students. Statutory rape laws apply to the situation regardless if there was a forced act or it was seemingly consensual. In this case, the teens are all of consenting age, but one said he was abused while the others didn't. The abuse allegation is all it took to trigger the law and consequences. If they all claimed consent, her consequences would've played out differently. So you see, even the claim that someone is always a victim in the abstract moral and legal sense is still dependent upon whether they themselves felt abused or not, which you are claiming are two separate things. They're not separate. At least in this case. If someone is not age of consent, then the abstract legalities override everything. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way.

In my case, I'm merely responding on the personal level. People tell me that I was abused (in the legal sense), when I am saying on the personal level that I wasn't. To me this distinction is very important. The law exists to protect minors who are being abused, and it performs this function by saying that all sex with minors is abuse. It has to be this way because the law, in its nature, never equivocates. The law may find that what my teacher did was wrong, and that's a separate issue. I don't personally feel that what he did was wrong because of how the whole thing was conducted and because of what I knew I wanted.

I can't speak to others who don't feel victimized at the time but do later, but I've met people like that. As minors they had sex they weren't ready for (but thought they were) and the repercussions didn't become apparent until they were adults. That's why they have removed the statute of limitations in some areas, because we know the psychological impacts of underage sex may take time to develop. In my case, that didn't happen. Having sex with an adult while I was a minor positively informed my sexual development and made me a more competent partner early in my adult life. So while my fellow 20-somethings were only just coming out of the closet and doing all the immature hooking up, clubbing, bar hopping, and validation seeking, I had already had my formative sexual stuff a long time ago and could focus on other areas of life, like career development and forming enduring LTRs.

 

[JessFR]

You make good points, thank you. To the first point... attack and rape are a different category than the teacher and the male students. Statutory rape laws apply to the situation regardless if there was a forced act or it was seemingly consensual. In this case, the teens are all of consenting age, but one said he was abused while the others didn't. The abuse allegation is all it took to trigger the law and consequences. If they all claimed consent, her consequences would've played out differently. So you see, even the claim that someone is always a victim in the abstract moral and legal sense is still dependent upon whether they themselves felt abused or not, which you are claiming are two separate things. They're not separate. At least in this case. If someone is not age of consent, then the abstract legalities override everything. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way.

In my case, I'm merely responding on the personal level. People tell me that I was abused (in the legal sense), when I am saying on the personal level that I wasn't. To me this distinction is very important. The law exists to protect minors who are being abused, and it performs this function by saying that all sex with minors is abuse. It has to be this way because the law, in its nature, never equivocates. The law may find that what my teacher did was wrong, and that's a separate issue. I don't personally feel that what he did was wrong because of how the whole thing was conducted and because of what I knew I wanted.

I can't speak to others who don't feel victimized at the time but do later, but I've met people like that. As minors they had sex they weren't ready for (but thought they were) and the repercussions didn't become apparent until they were adults. That's why they have removed the statute of limitations in some areas, because we know the psychological impacts of underage sex may take time to develop. In my case, that didn't happen. Having sex with an adult while I was a minor positively informed my sexual development and made me a more competent partner early in my adult life. So while my fellow 20-somethings were only just coming out of the closet and doing all the immature hooking up, clubbing, bar hopping, and validation seeking, I had already had my formative sexual stuff a long time ago and could focus on other areas of life, like career development and forming enduring LTRs.

I'm really tried/sleep deprived writing this so this following argument probably won't be my A game, but I would say that there's a distinction between whether you are a victim legally and morally, which is to say, by the letter of the law and some overarching sense of social norms. And whether you are a victim as a state of personal identification, whether you feel like you have been made a victim.

Only you can decide the latter, and it's totally independent of pretty much any other consideration, If you do you do and if you don't you don't, and nothing regarding the law of wider social norms or morality has any influence on that. It's an inner part of your own personal narrative.

If you say you're not a victim in that personal narrative sense, theeeen you're not, and I certainly cant rightly argue otherwise.

What I'm arguing is that the actions of the perpetrator, in your case as I understand it as well as as a hypothetical, is still morally and legally in the wrong regardless. The legal part is easy, again it is what the law says it is, or if the law is vague or operating on a reasonable person standard, whatever a court says it is. And again it's not really a point I can argue, it depends on jurisdiction and circumstance.

I would argue, simply as a person and member of a human social community, that I think it is immoral and should be widely accepted as immoral and be illegal as a reflection of its immorality.

The reason being that I simply don't believe an adult can truly appreciate how conducting a sexual relationship with someone of such a young age might affect that person. Regardless of what that person says, they're too young to be able to appreciate consequences. Because they can't appreciate the consequences of how this sexual relationship may affect them and their future, and their mental health, they can't consent. Either in a moral or rightly a legal way.

That's why I argue that it is immoral and should be illegal, even if not every instance of breaking that moral code or law results in someone who would say they have been victimized as their own internal view of what has happened.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

You make good points, thank you. To the first point... attack and rape are a different category than the teacher and the male students. Statutory rape laws apply to the situation regardless if there was a forced act or it was seemingly consensual. In this case, the teens are all of consenting age, but one said he was abused while the others didn't. The abuse allegation is all it took to trigger the law and consequences. If they all claimed consent, her consequences would've played out differently. So you see, even the claim that someone is always a victim in the abstract moral and legal sense is still dependent upon whether they themselves felt abused or not, which you are claiming are two separate things. They're not separate. At least in this case. If someone is not age of consent, then the abstract legalities override everything. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way.

In my case, I'm merely responding on the personal level. People tell me that I was abused (in the legal sense), when I am saying on the personal level that I wasn't. To me this distinction is very important. The law exists to protect minors who are being abused, and it performs this function by saying that all sex with minors is abuse. It has to be this way because the law, in its nature, never equivocates. The law may find that what my teacher did was wrong, and that's a separate issue. I don't personally feel that what he did was wrong because of how the whole thing was conducted and because of what I knew I wanted.

I can't speak to others who don't feel victimized at the time but do later, but I've met people like that. As minors they had sex they weren't ready for (but thought they were) and the repercussions didn't become apparent until they were adults. That's why they have removed the statute of limitations in some areas, because we know the psychological impacts of underage sex may take time to develop. In my case, that didn't happen. Having sex with an adult while I was a minor positively informed my sexual development and made me a more competent partner early in my adult life. So while my fellow 20-somethings were only just coming out of the closet and doing all the immature hooking up, clubbing, bar hopping, and validation seeking, I had already had my formative sexual stuff a long time ago and could focus on other areas of life, like career development and forming enduring LTRs.

Yeah whatever. You are arguing that it is fine for adults and teachers who children and teens are supposed to trust to sexually abuse, rape, and manipulate/psychologically abuse children/teens.

Why should anyone here take what you write seriously? You are advocating for adults to sexually abuse children/teens and are being homophobic/biphobic by claiming that adult gay and bisexual men sexually abuse children/teens or that we are sexual predators when this is not true at all and bisexual and gay men are only attracted to men, and we are not pedophiles and unlike you we hate pedophiles and idiot queens like you who claim sexual abuse of children/teens or whoever is not harmful.

There is no excuse or argument for adults to sexually abuse children, teens, or even other adults or that sexual abuse of children/teens by adults is 'consensual, harmless, hot, etc.'. Animal rapists like Fausty claim this about the animals they rape/sexually abuse.

Your fucked up sick opinion in your own words that sexual abuse of teens/kids "is not harmful", "hot sexy" is incorrect.

Whatever therapists or mental health professionals supposedly told you that the traumatic sexual abuse you had happen to you as a child/teen was not harmful, traumatic, not sexual abuse or your teacher is not a pedophile or sexual predator is laughable and only a pedophile or pedophile appologist would claim this.

No mental health therapist or mental health professional, that is qualified even in Canada would tell this to a victim of sexual abuse by a paedophile who was your teacher when you were a kid/barely 13.

Your former teacher is scum. Tell the police or child services as this creep should never be a teacher or ever around children or teens as he sexually abused you when you were 12/13 and his student. He has sexually abused other victims and probably other classmates of yours, or other children/teens in your area. Paedophiles and sexual predators do not change, and if someone has been sexually abused as a child/teen and does not get help they will become a pedophile.

Did you ever wonder why you have PTSD, polydrug addiction, go on dates with other older adult men who are sexual predators? It has to do with your unresolved trauma from being sexually abused by your disgusting pedophile teacher when you were 13.