things that took place in the school never went into public view back then...my Mom went straight to the school administration but they swept it all under the rug. Listen I wasn't any angel, I was smacked more than once over the course of my school years but today somebody would be doing some serious jail time. And I'll repeat that discipline through violence just isn't worth it.
Those were the good old days. Actually it's pretty clear that you've never been through boot or any other specialized unit training...at least not in the past 30 years. Really about the only time fear came into play in the military was when discussing potential shitty outcomes in real world ops. Fear is actually a tremendous motivator and shouldn't be seen as a negative as it at some point ends up keeping people alive. Being intimidated is also a choice unless they simply lack spine.
thanks Moishe, but no I'm not a military guy...but I just finished this book: http://www.ericgreitens.com/books/the-heart-and-the-fist/
I've not read the book but I am more than familiar with Mr. Greitens and the work he has done. Having not read the book does he actually state in his book that the military or Navy in this case leads and trains it's fighting men under the type of fear/intimidation that you asserted in the post I quoted? I have read books by and about David Stirling, Dick Couch, Eric Haney, Larry Vickers and several others. Met a couple of them even but one commonality amongst the US service members was the agreement that the training was intense and in your face but the whole fear piece was centered around real world scenarios we could find ourselves in. I suppose you could call it fear and intimidation but I wouldn't. That degree of intensity in training has kept more men alive than it has killed.
Corporal punishment has no business in schools. Often times, schools are a respite from the corporal punishment done at home (sometimes not willingly). Bring that into school and it is risking the loss of those students.
he described basic training...so more or less it's my interpretation of his writing...an excellent book.
I'll definitely check the book out. It does seem odd though that someone that graduated BUDs would describe basic/boot camp in such a manner.
I know it's a big system, but ... /http://nypost.com/2014/04/13/school-probe-finds-104-staff-student-flings-since-2009/ "In 2013 alone, ... 566 complaints against Department of Education employees with a “sexual component” ... 233 investigations and substantiated 24 percent, or 58"
That allegation is different, as the boy did not consent. If that account is true, that is one strange, obsessed and seemingly dangerous woman.
I don't know whether only female teachers are busted these days or those are the only accounts being posted, but women are on quite a roll here.
Without wishing to get too detailed, how would she 'force' him to have oral sex? I mean, wouldn't it be too.... well.... 'floppy' to put it crudely? Yeah, there isn't really a non-crude way to put that, is there
He's probably just saying this now because he is afraid her husband is going to kill him. BTW - what you can't see in this photo, is that she is reaching back and giving the statue a hand-job at the time.
Actually, 17 year olds can legally consent to sex with adults almost everywhere in the developed world, including Texas*, if Texas is considered part of the developed world. So yes, 17 year olds can have consensual sex in 90%+ of the developed world, and so yes there is a legal difference in that 90%+ between forcing a 17 year old and not forcing a 17 year old. * In Texas, 17 year olds can have sex with adults unless that adult is a teacher, so this case would fall outside of the general provision. Which makes sense to me. I remember when I was 17, and I was quite capable of distinguishing between what I wanted to do and what I wished to avoid.
You said "that allegation is different." Than what? Not every case discussed in this thread involves a 17 year old student.
By "consent", I think he's talking about sex between a female teacher and a male student who is good to go but simply not old enough to legally consent. This particular situation involves a male who, for whatever reason, did not want to have sex with the female teacher.
Than the other cases where the students were not forced. That is a clear difference. Apparently not a meaningful one to you, which is fine, we can disagree, but it certainly is a factual difference.
I should not have used the word consent because it has legal implications, and I did not intend a legal argument. Forced vs. not forced was the point.
Yes, that part was clear. My point was that in many of the cases we've discussed in this thread the students were under the age of 17. I thought it was clear that's what I meant, given that I typed exactly that. There are many cases where the student was not "forced" in the sense of being physically harassed or intimidated, but was also below the age of consent.
Now ya see, I don't care so much about the lap dance itself ... but the fact that she was stupid enough to do it is proof that some of our educators are not smart enough to be in that line of work.