Sex crime teacher faces jail - for talking to teen

[Pawn Power]

Sex crime teacher faces jail - for talking to teen

Former model on probation 'had unsupervised contact with minor'


A woman teacher who escaped a jail sentence after having sex with a schoolboy is now facing 15 years behind bars for allegedly breaking the terms of her probation - by talking to a 17-year-old girl.

Debra Lafave, a former model, became a tabloid cause célèbre in America when it emerged that, in 2004, she had seduced a 14-year-old pupil in a classroom and at her home. She was sentenced to three years under house arrest, seven years on probation, and was banned from teaching. Her husband, who discussed the case on numerous talk shows, divorced her.

The probation conditions specified that she must not have unsupervised contact with minors. She is now accused of violating these terms by having 'intimate conversations' with a 17-year-old female colleague at the restaurant where she worked as a waitress.

Lafave, 27, spoke to the teenager several times about family problems, friends, school, boyfriends and sex, according to a police report.

Her probation officer ordered her arrest and is recommending the harshest possible punishment for the alleged violation - 15 years in prison, the standard sentence for her original crime. She will appear in a court in Florida next week.


fifteen years seems a bit harsh for talking to basically an adult.


link (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2233197,00.html)

[Robert]

She won't get 15 years for technical violations like this, and probably won't get revoked at all. the judge will yell at her and she'll be reinstated on probation.

Most guys I have talked to agree that we would love to have been abused in high school by that blonde. I'm starting to wonder though if she's a psycho and may actually have done some psychological damage to the boy. Who knows.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 30, 2007 05:45 am
Most guys I have talked to agree that we would love to have been abused in high school by that blonde. I'm starting to wonder though if she's a psycho and may actually have done some psychological damage to the boy. Who knows.
You want to be abused? The mental health people are aware of you, right? :wacko:

[Robert]

You want to be abused?

You want to go fuck yourself? She had consensual sex with a 14-year old student. If you never fantasized about sex with a blonde teacher, you're the one that needs treatment. Maybe a hot beef injection up your dumb ass.

Use condoms at least, you dope.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 30, 2007 05:30 pm

You want to be abused?

You want to go fuck yourself? She had consensual sex with a 14-year old student. If you never fantasized about sex with a blonde teacher, you're the one that needs treatment. Maybe a hot beef injection up your dumb ass.


I'll reply in language you might understand, then -



Ug! Ugg ug ug og ugg! Blonde! Ug! Sexy! Ug!



I'm not fluent as you can tell...

[Invader Zim]

I take it you have some kind of issue with sexual fantasy then, Red Anarchist?

[Lynx]

Statutory rape laws do not recognize schoolboy fantasies.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 06:05 pm
I take it you have some kind of issue with sexual fantasy then, Red Anarchist?
I have no problem with sexual fantasies, but what Robert said just sounded so stupid. Why would he enjoy being sexually abused just because the woman was attractive to him?

[Red October]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+December 30, 2007 02:17 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ December 30, 2007 02:17 pm)
Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 06:05 pm
I take it you have some kind of issue with sexual fantasy then, Red Anarchist?
I have no problem with sexual fantasies, but what Robert said just sounded so stupid. Why would he enjoy being sexually abused just because the woman was attractive to him? [/b]
I think 'abused' was the wrong word to use. He probably just meant he wanted to bang his teacher, that's all.

[RedAnarchist]

And what this mean? - "Maybe a hot beef injection up your dumb ass"

[Colonello Buendia]

he basically implied that you would should get analy penetrated by either a hot-dog (very, very strange) or or by having gay sex. anyway, the woman didn't deserve the latest charge, the first one school boy fantasy or not, the woman abused a position of trust and seduced a minor. thus putting her in the wrong, even if the kid had been 18 she would have abused her position.

[Colonello Buendia]

plus I think that Robert the great has quite possibly uncovered some deep desires

[spartan]

If the 14 year old consented to the sex and enjoyed it then how is that rape?

I know that he was young but come on girls are having babies at 12 years old nowadays so this is hardly shocking.

Now if he was pre pubescent and wasnt a teenager then that obviously is wrong but most 14 year old heterosexual males are more than willing to shag a nice blonde when they see one (If blondes are your forte).

[Dr Mindbender]

...i think the rationale offered by the legal system is that a teenager below a certain age is not well informed enough to make educated descisions about their sexuality therefore this is why it constitutes rape. Personally i think that varies, i probably had more sense at 14 than a lot of sexually active 30 year olds.

[Robert]

Right, and in many cases that's true. But a domineering male teacher deflowering an underage and naive girl and squirting his seed into her is, to me, different from the woman accepting the seed from a consenting male "child." You know that guy was getting "attaboys" from all his buddies. He'll survive all right.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 30, 2007 11:02 pm
Right, and in many cases that's true. But a domineering male teacher deflowering an underage and naive girl and squirting his seed into her is, to me, different from the woman accepting the seed from a consenting male "child." You know that guy was getting "attaboys" from all his buddies. He'll survive all right.
Wow the misogyny just drips off you doesn't it, you creep?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 30, 2007 11:02 pm
Right, and in many cases that's true. But a domineering male teacher deflowering an underage and naive girl and squirting his seed into her is, to me, different from the woman accepting the seed from a consenting male "child." You know that guy was getting "attaboys" from all his buddies. He'll survive all right.
Don't girls mature earlier? If so, then I think the boy would be more naive.

[Robert]

You kids are so predictable you're boring. I'll come back when my genius friends Dragon and Robot return. In the meantime, keep dreaming your pipe dreams of utopia.

Oh, as for girls, take a basic anatomy class when you get out of junior high. You will discover some differences between males and female if you're not too high on marijuana all the time.

Farting in your general direction, and hoping your mommies don't cut off your allowance during this festive time of year, I remain, yours happily

Robert (the Great)

[Pirate Utopian]

Right, and in many cases that's true. But a domineering male teacher deflowering an underage and naive girl and squirting his seed into her is, to me, different from the woman accepting the seed from a consenting male "child." You know that guy was getting "attaboys" from all his buddies. He'll survive all right.
:D It's like a Clerks 2 quote.

Anyway how can charges be pressed if she didnt do anything but talk?

[pusher robot]

It's like a Clerks 2 quote.:D

Anyway how can charges be pressed if she didnt do anything but talk?

Charges aren't being pressed, probation is being revoked. Two different things.

[RedAnarchist]

:D It's like a Clerks 2 quote.

Anyway how can charges be pressed if she didnt do anything but talk?

She was on probation and that was one of the things she wasn't allowed to do as she was on probation.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the problem here is the age of consent
as for adults who have sex with underage children being restricted from intimate contact with underage children, that sounds perfectly reasonable

[luxemburg89]

If you never fantasized about sex with a blonde teacher, you're the one that needs treatment.

Do you think the Priory would accept me? It's just Brunettes are more my sort of thing.

I'd like to develop your point here, you seem to think that, as it's a woman, it isn't abuse of any sort - I'm not expressing an opinion here just stating things; yet, if the teacher were a man would you consider it differently? No one wants to be abused, talk to those that have experienced it.

[Wanted Man]

You know that guy was getting "attaboys" from all his buddies. He'll survive all right.

Actually, didn't one of the kid's friends "betray" them? Anyway, Robert was obviously using "abuse" ironically, because Lafave had consensual sex with the student, and there was no abuse involved.

By the way, it's quite disturbing to see the moralism and statism from some self-declared anarchists here: "she seduced an innocent young boy!" and "she broke the law, so there!"

[Robert]

Don't be too hard on my juvenile friends, Infaam & Abject (what an unusual name!); if I were the one damning the teacher they'd be jumping me for moral nazism. But as I am a reactionary cappie, they must somehow, anyhow, take the other side to avoid agreeing with me.

But I actually will concede the possibility that the experience will have warped the boy's outlook on life and sexual development. But it's impossible to measure. One could as glibly hypothesize that he would have become a savage, woman hating rapist if the teacher had spurned him. Bottom line: she didn't get pregnant, nobody's hurt except her husband who has divorced her, they had a good time, so no harm, no foul.

Down with repressive laws! Vive la révolution sexuelle!

[Ismail]

I like how we Communists have no morals yet we have a capitalist advocating what would be classed by many as pedophilia.

[dark fairy]

I think 15 years is too harsh for talking to a girl who might as well be of age...
:/
i also think that a 14 year old boy knows EXACTLY what he's doing,and if not his body sure does. I don't think of it as rape, what she did... If this boy did not have an erection, the sex would not have been possible.

But that is not the point, the point is, 15 years is too much.
I don't think the judge will go for that. Plus, like i said it wasn't rape, time had passed, i don't think she was trying to get the 17 year old girl in bed, so i don't think she'll get 15 years.

[Jazzratt]

I don't think of it as rape, what she did... If this boy did not have an erection, the sex would not have been possible.

It's not rape if she's wet, eh? This isn't in regards to the case in question but a wider point - arousal does not imply consent, it is a purely physical reaction to stimulus.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

i think i might actually be agreeing with jazz here ....

arousal does not imply consent

and i can't help but notice the grossly deranged double standard displayed here .... the idea that a 14 year old boy is more mentally capable of sexual consent then a 14 year old girl is pretty much bullshit ...

sure boys and girls mature physically at different rates but the psychological maturity is an altogether more complicated subject, just imagine if this was a male teacher who had seduced his 14 year old female student ... i guarantee you would all be singing a different tune ...

the idea that young boys who live out your fantasies of "banging the blond school teacher" are somehow virile young studs who gain approval from their friends and indeed most of the pervs reading this story merely highlights the sick state that the USA happens to be in terms of gender equality ...

in the converse if the gender roles had been reversed i am certain that she would not have gotten off with a slap on the wrist house arrest and work release ... she would have gotten the book thrown at her ... and maybe she should have ...

maybe you shits should try posting on the NAMBLA message board ...


anyway .... the whole talking to an underage girl is a violation of her probation, thus a violation of the law, and while we may not agree with many of the laws of this country, she disobeyed and should be punished ...

[Dean]

Don't be too hard on my juvenile friends, Infaam & Abject (what an unusual name!); if I were the one damning the teacher they'd be jumping me for moral nazism. But as I am a reactionary cappie, they must somehow, anyhow, take the other side to avoid agreeing with me.
No, we oppose child abuse on the grounds that it is oppressive and, in this case, a child's consent is hard to stipulate rationally.


But I actually will concede the possibility that the experience will have warped the boy's outlook on life and sexual development. But it's impossible to measure. One could as glibly hypothesize that he would have become a savage, woman hating rapist if the teacher had spurned him. Bottom line: she didn't get pregnant, nobody's hurt except her husband who has divorced her, they had a good time, so no harm, no foul.
So, severe sychological damage could have occured, and yet the crime is victimless?

We aren't making any specific hypothesis - in fact, whether or not he can consent is still up in the air, but the judgement leans to "no" based on age, cultural traditions and the fact that they were not mutually mature enough to keep the relationship secret.

On a side note, I am very surprised by the vast amount of sexism here, though similar ideas have been exhibited before. Why can a 14 year old boy make decisions, yet the same as a girl is being forced? If a 14 year old girl had sex with a grown man she thought was hot, would that be acceptable? You people seem to miss the point. It's not about pleasure or even stated consent: it's about abuse and immaturity. I amy have loved to screw that teacher I thought was cute in 9th grade, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have had negative repercussions or been a potentially coercive situation.

[Cult of Reason]

If a 14 year old girl had sex with a grown man she thought was hot, would that be acceptable?

I think that the main problem is, in respect to consent, coercion, abuse etc., that in the girl's case there are greater risks of having her life adversely affected than for a male. Specifically, I am referring to the risk of pregnancy, which, I am sure you would agree, is not something most adolescents would find easy to cope with (especially with the stigma attached to teenage pregnancy). Then there would be three problems that she would have to deal with that I can think of: whether to abort, whether to put up for adoption, how to deal with the biological father in all three possible results (abortion, adoption and, of course, actually bringing up the child). Then, of course, she will find it difficult to get an education, employment etc. in most cases.

Therefore, I would say that adult males who have sex with adolescent females might justifiably be looked on with a worse light than all the other possible situations, simply because a) the 'adult' of the pair is supposed by society to be the one who is/should be responsible and b) risking pregnancy for the female is hugely irresponsible on the man's part (and this is looking at it charitably).

[Robert]

Haraldur's points are strong and irrefutable.

[Dean]

I think that the main problem is, in respect to consent, coercion, abuse etc., that in the girl's case there are greater risks of having her life adversely affected than for a male. Specifically, I am referring to the risk of pregnancy, which, I am sure you would agree, is not something most adolescents would find easy to cope with (especially with the stigma attached to teenage pregnancy). Then there would be three problems that she would have to deal with that I can think of: whether to abort, whether to put up for adoption, how to deal with the biological father in all three possible results (abortion, adoption and, of course, actually bringing up the child). Then, of course, she will find it difficult to get an education, employment etc. in most cases.

Therefore, I would say that adult males who have sex with adolescent females might justifiably be looked on with a worse light than all the other possible situations, simply because a) the 'adult' of the pair is supposed by society to be the one who is/should be responsible and b) risking pregnancy for the female is hugely irresponsible on the man's part (and this is looking at it charitably).

What if we consider it from a standoint that pregnancy is not likely, or even impossible? I don't think the risk of pregnancy changes it to a point that makes it more or less relevant which gender someone abuses. I think the entire meaning behind the greater stigma that is attached to abuse of young girls is chauvinism - the belief that the woman must be protected, whereas the man can fend for himself. Most cases of child abuse don't even carry the risk of pregnancy, simply because ~half are againt males and of those against women, not all are potential pregnancy risks. I dont see how pregnancy makes the crime any more or less heinous.

[Cult of Reason]

What if we consider it from a standoint that pregnancy is not likely, or even impossible?

Why? There will be a risk of it (and no I do not know the probability). Perhaps neither use contraception? Perhaps it is improperly used? In any case there is a risk, and the risk is primarily for the female of the pair. If the female one is older it can usually be assumed that she was in control. Not so the other way around. There have been cases of the male party pressuring that condoms not be used, for whatever reason.


I don't think the risk of pregnancy changes it to a point that makes it more or less relevant which gender someone abuses.

Of course it DOES. It is a case of thinking about the risks of harm. There is more potential for harm for a female for a male, no doubt about it. Males like me(us?) are lucky in this respect. There is greater potential for harm when a male 'abuses' a female than the other way around, so it most definitely IS more serious.


I think the entire meaning behind the greater stigma that is attached to abuse of young girls is chauvinism - the belief that the woman must be protected, whereas the man can fend for himself.

It does not matter what causes the stigma. The fact is that the stigma exists and will likely adversely affect the girl for years.


Most cases of child abuse don't even carry the risk of pregnancy, simply because ~half are againt males and of those against women, not all are potential pregnancy risks.

What is your point?


I dont see how pregnancy makes the crime any more or less heinous.

The 'crime' (why did you have to use that word? I am not assuming any particular set of circumstances) is more heinous simply because pregnancy is, or is reputed to be, a life changing experience that will drastically affect quality of life to all but the richest. Most adults cannot really afford to have children, much less a teenager.

[Robert]

Imagine boy A who is persuaded or coerced, but not tied down, to receive anal sex from a male teacher.

Boy B is persuaded or coerced, but not tied down, to have vaginal intercourse with a female teacher.

See any difference?

[Jazzratt]

Beyond physical?

It would be slightly less traumatic if boy A were a homosexual and boy B a heterosexual but only slightly.

[Robert]

No, not beyond physical. One involves the invasion of the child's body cavity, the other doesn't. If you don't see a difference, god help you. Before you get overexcited, remember that I am not calling for repeal of sex assault laws that penalize the offender of either gender. The teacher who is subject of this thread has been convicted, and that's fine with me.

Now, what other principles of basic anatomy are you commies confused about? I'll straighten you out.

[Dean]

The 'crime' (why did you have to use that word? I am not assuming any particular set of circumstances) is more heinous simply because pregnancy is, or is reputed to be, a life changing experience that will drastically affect quality of life to all but the richest. Most adults cannot really afford to have children, much less a teenager.

Your responses carry the same point, so I'll just address it here.

First off, money is not the primary issue of sexual abuse. If a rich 14 year old is impregnated by a rapist, it is not somehow better than a poorer girl having been raped. The only way in which it is better is that it will be handled with a more likely capability for safe abortion or better economic situation for the mother, child &c. This way in which it is "better" is so miniscule compared to the psychological, physical and emotional abuse and repercussions that it should not be considered relevant in the judgement of the rapist or the sympathy for the victim. The only case where it should matter is if the rapist intends to impregnate the victim.

The same logic holds true for abuse of boys versus girls. The psychological, emotional, social and physical trauma is so great for any victim of sexual abuse that the risks entailed in pregnancy pale in comparison.

There are a few basic points, I think, for why abuse of boys should be considered just as heinous as abuse of girls:
-In response to your one argument against this point, pregnancy is a negligible issue in sexual abuse, as argued above.

-So many variables go into the abuse of children, and there are so many negative outcomes with varying coherant relation to the abuse (i.e. a child abused once may be more emotionally scarred than one abused constantly), that a difference like "girls can get pregnant" hardly hold weight in the judgement. It would be more reasonable to demonstrate the psychological changes that are seen in abused girls versus abused boys to judge why abuse of one or the other is "worse."

-Most cases of sexual abuse (I'd say about 75% as a very rough estimate) don't involve the risk of pregnancy for the victim. Therefore, your distinction of impregnability becomes less relevant to the comparison between the sexes.

-Finally - even if 100% of cases where females are abused involved pregnancy risk, the judgement of an atomized case (here the abusive teacher) doesn't change. It was a terrible crime (assuming the conviction is correct and reasonable) and should not be diminished by the gender of the victim.


I do understand how pregnancy causes more complications and problems in a case of sexual abuse. However, the abuse of children is so complicated in repercussions, and social issues, gender relations and sexuality often play such major roles in the degree of violence &c., that the statement "pregnancy makes abuse of girls worse to the point that considering abuse of boys as better than girls is reasonable" comes off as very ignorant and dehumanizing. Furthermore, the risk of pregnacny is clearly not the driving force for the social mindset that puts sexual crime against girls as worse than that against boys: it is clearly chauvinism.

[luxemburg89]

Imagine boy A who is persuaded or coerced, but not tied down, to receive anal sex from a male teacher.

Boy B is persuaded or coerced, but not tied down, to have vaginal intercourse with a female teacher.


Lol, you're a funny one. I presumed (from your posts and your username) that you are a moron and I have kindly taken the liberty of providing you with a definition of 'coercion':

(From www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com))
co-er-cion
–noun 1.the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

I would argue that the pleasure in both situation A and B is experienced by the teacher and not the pupil in both cases. As such we can consider that the operative word here is 'coercion' in both cases and therefore both situations are equally severe from a psychological point of view - the difference is, I suppose, physiological. Rape is rape; coercion is coercion, the gender of the rapist doesn't really change anything - nor does the gender of the victim.

Now onto the interesting part:


what other principles of basic anatomy are you commies confused about?

Yeah, I was just going to ask whether it was situation A with your Dad or situation B with your Mum that obviously really fucked you up in childhood.


I'll straighten you out.

Would you be implying that there is something wrong with not being straight? I think this vile homophobe should be banned:D...or shot either way it doesn't bother me so long as IT fucks off.

[Robert]

I think this vile homophobe should be banned:D...or shot either way it doesn't bother me so long as IT fucks off.

This post refers to me. The board (and presumably the moderators) can now see where a frustrated leftist ultimately ends up when invited to debate: "We must either censor the ideas we disagree with, or kill the speaker."

The green smiley is the oddest. He's only kidding a little about banning me, you see, a little good humored bonhomie ... but then he's perfectly happy to see me killed.

And I'm the one who should be banned?

[Jazzratt]

No, not beyond physical. One involves the invasion of the child's body cavity, the other doesn't. If you don't see a difference, god help you.

And here we have an insight into what happens if most of your brain has been eaten by insects, you begin attaching mystical importance to this kind of thing. I'm really sorry that you are no longer capable of having sex because of your inadequate, floppy, ancient cock and your fucking vile personality but that doesn't excuse the weird obsession you have with these irrelevant details.


Now, what other principles of basic anatomy are you commies confused about? I'll straighten you out.

I'll admit it's an inventive way of trying to post pictures of your unsavoury, hoary genitals but I'm afraid that necrosis will have replaced ageing by the time anyone who's stupid enough to fall for it will be born. Your condescending fuckwittery, by the way, would have more of an effect if you weren't such a laughable, cretinous and loathsome ****; In fact, that such a worthless dribble of goat cum as yourself has the temerity to attack any of the members of this site in such a manner is a perfect illustration of what a complete waste of time it was to conceive you.

Just in case you're interested (which I'm sure you are) the idea that I have to share a universe with scum like you is nauseating and almost makes me belive that all of creation is the fault of a single malefic entity.

[Robert]

I'm only condescending toward those who can't debate without childish and irrelevant diversions.

People like ... you, for example. You are inferior due to a combination of inferior genes, poor diet, and lack of exercise. You have many other shortcomings, but you can't handle too many ideas at once, so I'll give you a break and not run up the score. You have an imagination, but it disserves you. You imagine a world where your mommy government will give you everything you want, for free. A world where all those who create that which you think you want will ultimately be incarcerated or shot.

What your genetically disadvantaged brain (such as it is) prevent you from calculating is that after the producers are shot or imprisoned, there will be no one with the brains, vision, and energy to create all your toys and computer games for you.

It's not your fault. The genes, I mean. Everything else is. There is no hope for you. I am very sorry.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

ok .. let me see if i can piece together your argument ....


She had consensual sex with a 14-year old student.ok ... so you are arguing that a 14 year old boy is mentally capable of consenting to an authority figure such as a teacher who ten years his elder ....

sure, nothing too wrong with that assumption, the sparticists favor an end to age of consent legislation ....

however in this case you are wrong ... forgoing the arguments that might arise concerning the American justice system, this was not consensual sex as was determined in a court of law ....


Oh, as for girls, take a basic anatomy class when you get out of junior high. You will discover some differences between males and female ok, arguing that males and females have different anatomies, correct once again ... however i do not see how anatomical structure factors into consent ....

oh wait here is your justification:


One involves the invasion of the child's body cavity, the other doesn't. huh ... well again i do not see how penetration or arousal has any bearing on consent ... perhaps you could explain it to us ....

oh wait here is your explanation:


If you don't see a difference, god help you.well i don't see a difference and god is pretty vague on the subject so how about you do a better job in explaining yourself, because as of right now your argument is shit


but you can't handle too many ideas at onceummm ... well after looking over your "ideas" it appears that so called argument has no foundation, do yourself a favor and attempt to think logically because you are basically employing a narrow and rather sexist definition of rape (that rape = penetration) and a definition of corercion that is based upon gender (you think that 14 year old males are always consenting partners)

look, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about ... your posts are rife with assumptions concerning the mental state of the persons involved, they employ a large amount of bias in terms of gender, and your selective definitions of the terms rape and consent are fairly stanky bullshit ....

so is that your well crafted and insightful argument?


I'm only condescending toward those who can't debate without childish and irrelevant diversions.like these diversions?:

You know that guy was getting "attaboys" from all his buddies.
You are inferior due to a combination of inferior genes, poor diet, and lack of exercise.
Maybe a hot beef injection up your dumb ass.

If you never fantasized about sex with a blonde teacher, you're the one that needs treatment.

if you're not too high on marijuana all the time.
Farting in your general direction, and hoping your mommies don't cut off your allowance during this festive time of year
I'll straighten you out.you are going to have to do better then that shitheel

check please!

[Robert]

Excellent! Now there's a man with brains.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

actually on second thought .. i think i have discovered the real reason that Robert defends female rapists:

http://www.ptgustan.com/sep06/badteach2.jpg

keep it in your pants ....

pervs ....