On Student-Teacher Sex (Again)

By FITSNEWS  ||  The sex scandal involving South Carolina high school teacher Kinsley Wentzky is likely to get worse before it gets better. The 34-year-old honors English teacher at Dreher (Columbia, S.C.) High School has reportedly been on suicide watch following her arrest – and we’re told her upcoming trial on…

By FITSNEWS  ||  The sex scandal involving South Carolina high school teacher Kinsley Wentzky is likely to get worse before it gets better. The 34-year-old honors English teacher at Dreher (Columbia, S.C.) High School has reportedly been on suicide watch following her arrest – and we’re told her upcoming trial on sexual “battery” charges against a pair of male students could involve some unexpected baby mama drama.

Yikes … somebody call Maury Povich, right?

Anyway … Wentzky’s saga (which is part of a rash of student-teacher sex scandals in South Carolina) has prompted us to revisit one of our least popular editorial positions: An overreaching Palmetto State law prohibiting sex between consenting adults.

Wait … what?

That’s right … Wentzky is facing up to a decade in the slammer for allegedly engaging in sexual relations with two individuals who had reached the age of consent in South Carolina (i.e. sixteen years). In other words, “consensual sex.”

Don’t get us wrong … Wentzky should obviously be fired for what she did. Seriously, people … unless your definition of “hands on” anatomy lessons differs dramatically from ours there’s absolutely no circumstance in which it’s okay for a teacher to have sexual contact with a student. Those who violate this rule deserve to get shit-canned.

Kinsley Wentzky
Kinsley Wentzky

But just because what Wentzky did with these young men was (clearly) wrong that doesn’t mean it ought to be considered criminal – not so long as the so-called “victims” were willing participants in these illicit liaisons. And judging by the looks of Wentzky, they were. The age of consent law ensures anyone sixteen years of age or older – including Kimberly Wentzky – can “get their freak on” with anyone else above that age.

Which is as it should be …

We addressed this issue a few months ago when Kentucky teacher (and former Cincinnati Bengals’ cheerleader) Sarah Jones avoided jail time for having sex with a 16-year-old student.

“We’re not condoning what Jones did, but this was clearly a consensual relationship that in no way constituted sexual abuse,” we wrote. “The only reason Jones was arrested and prosecuted is because there is a separate Kentucky law which makes it a felony for someone in a position of authority to have sex with someone under 18 years of age.”

South Carolina has a similar law – which is currently being used to prosecute Wentzky. It shouldn’t be …

With all due respect to the Bible thumpers who pushed this bit of sanctimonious morality through the S.C. General Assembly, this is ridiculous. Wentzky should lose her job (and probably her family, too) for what she did, but government shouldn’t spend tax dollars prosecuting and incarcerating people for what amounts to consensual sex.

What do you think? Vote in our poll and post your thoughts in our comments section below …


(Banner via)

Related posts


Bitcoin: What It Is, How To Invest In It, And The Risks Involved


Prioleau Alexander: On June Weddings

E Prioleau Alexander

Prioleau Alexander: Get Your App Off My Lawn

E Prioleau Alexander


WTF January 14, 2013 at 8:47 am

While 16 and 17 year old boys could hardly be called adult they are of the legal age of consent in South Carolina, and they do have all the equipment necessary to service a hot 33 yr old blond. I was once 16 and 17 years old and I can say without a doubt that no one took advantage of those two young men. I willingly lost my virtue at age 16 to a nineteen year old. It did not scar me or mess up my life. I am now a very productive member of society, a loving husband and father. It is a dumb law.

Those two young men were victims of a dumb law and not the highly sexed woman. This should be a private matter between the woman and who I assume is a very embarrassed and humiliated husband who did not deserve this drama.

Raspy January 14, 2013 at 10:21 am

Well said, WTF! I also agree fully with Fits’ editorial on this matter. I believe Jake Knotts, whose own sexual behavior as reported, is not exemplary, pushed for the current stupid law. It would be funny if he were finally busted for his sexual behavior and had to serve time and be a registered sex offender, given that he believes it is appropriate in cases like this one.

walter January 14, 2013 at 9:06 am

Funny, I wonder if all of you would feel the same if a 40 year old black mandingo teacher fucked the SHIT out of your little sweet 16 year old white dreher high cheerleader? Huh?

fitsnews Author January 14, 2013 at 10:12 am


you’re not getting any takers so let me jump in …

as dad to a daughter I’ll put in like this: when my little girl (and she will always be my little girl) hits her sweet 16, she will have certain freedoms. However those freedoms do not diminish my freedom to FUCK UP anybody who treats her in a manner that displeases me.

in fact that freedom never expires.

of course as everybody in Columbia knows by now, it’s Mrs. Sic people really need to be afraid of … detroit girls don’t play.


shifty henry January 14, 2013 at 10:39 am

Well said, Sic – now where are those new photos of Mrs. Sic?

Call me Fishmeal January 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm

FITS has the shits on this one – in the circumstances you describe, he’d be tying nooses…Talk of liberarianism is easy, living it ain’t alwys the same.

Stephen Hawking January 14, 2013 at 9:09 am

There are two errors in that calculation.

shifty henry January 14, 2013 at 9:11 am

….. what calculation?

Cougar Baseball January 14, 2013 at 9:16 am

I knew the husband when he played baseball in Charleston. My heart goes out to him. He is a beautiful person. You are right that he did not deserve this. I pray he can move on and be a great father.

tpanderson January 16, 2013 at 4:37 pm

I also knew both of these people. Kinsley since I was about 5 and her husband since I was about 11. They are both amazing people. I cannot come to understand what must be going on for this to have happened. I can only hope that he and the kids will come out of this ok, but I also pray for her. Sometimes really good people do bad things, and this is one of those cases. She is truly not a bad person, what she has done is terrible..i do agree, but jail? No way. The ramifications of her actions will be with here for the rest of her life. She has lost a truly amazing man and ruined a reputation that she has spent her whole life building.

Tom January 29, 2013 at 4:25 pm

Divorce that ho asap!

Phonebooth Bob January 14, 2013 at 9:29 am

So are we saying different laws for boys and girls who are 16 and 17?

If not, we must change the law to allow the inevitable beating with a 36 oz. Louisville Slugger for a teacher who does this to my 17 or 17 year old daughter.

Laws are here to protect us from each other. Nothing more. THAT is libertarian. If FITS is a libertarian, he has to understand that.

Anyone in authority should have limits. This teacher was in authority. She was is a position of public trust. She broke that trust. She should be punished by the law, if only to serve as a warning to others in authority.

Raspy January 14, 2013 at 10:24 am

So anything that “offends” someone else should be punishable by law, eh? If your cologne “offends” me, then I should be able to sign a warrant and have you jailed, so that I have recourse other than acting like a redneck and beating the snot out of you? Is that how it works?

Phonebooth Bob January 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm


I don’t know where you get “offends”, so i will ignore it.

The other point is that without laws, enforced as they should be, there is no recourse when someone’s real interest is trampled illegally but to take action themselves. that is what a nation of laws is about.

And Raspy, for the record, I would not beat anyone, even you, for offensive cologne. But if you fuck my 16 year old, I will, unless you are put in jail.

CL January 14, 2013 at 9:47 am

IMO, FITS is right to point out that the criminal law regarding authority figures conflicts with the general age of consent law, but is wrong that this conflict is illogical. On the surface, it is odd that if John Doe sleeps with a 16 year old girl who is a friend of one of his children, the only legal consequences he might face would be a divorce proceeding. He would be an immoral creep, but not a criminal. But if you add the single additional fact that he is the football coach at the girl’s school, he becomes a criminal. But FITS is wrong that this is just some illogical “Bible thumper” imposition. There is sound, although maybe not compelling, logic for the law.

FITS agrees that teachers sleeping with students is wrong and that the authority figure should be fired for this conduct. So he would agree that this is conduct we want to discourage. It is perfectly logical to conclude that firing alone is not a sufficient disincentive to prevent school officials to act on their impulses and that criminal penalties would be needed to make a difference. I imagine these laws were more about deterrence than about puritanical thinking.

Now, I am agnostic about whether these laws actually act as a deterrent or, even if they do, that is a sufficient justification for criminalizing what is otherwise lawful (if creepy and wrong) behavior. But that does not change its logic.

Steve V January 14, 2013 at 9:50 am

We can uphold old and dumb as shit laws against gambling, yet we can’t uphold the legal age of consent in SC? When I was 17, you would have had to pull me off of a teacher like that. Any red-blooded male would have said yes, (unless they play for the other team).

Lance Riprock January 14, 2013 at 9:52 am

Does anyone know how this came to the attention of the cops? Sure, it’s a little tacky of her, but what healthy male from 14 to 75 wouldn’t toss her salad given the opportunity. No harm; no foul.

Raspy January 14, 2013 at 10:26 am

I’m guessing we have a lot more closeted little boys that age who are unsure of their sexuality, these days. I don’t get it either. One would hope the social ostracism and shunning for such twits would be off the chart. It would have been back in my day.

Phonebooth Bob January 14, 2013 at 12:42 pm

Current rumor, I repeat RUMOR, is that it came out in counseling, and at that point the counselor was duty bound to report it to the parents.

If this is true, maybe the act was not as “harmless” as some here would like to think.

Neil January 14, 2013 at 4:02 pm

A friend’s son goes to Dreher and he was showing us some of the tweets over Christmas break and the months prior between her and some students. Apparently some students found out over Christmas break and starting talking about it openly on twitter. Not sure if thats how they were caught or if police knew about prior. Several posts even named one of the students that nailed her.

SubZeroIQ January 14, 2013 at 9:57 am

I realized something else I posted needs moderation because it has a link.
So, I need to post this:
Don’t Fire the Teacher Who Stomped on the Flag, Applaud Him.
“You are free to choose any car color you want as long as it is black.” Was the choice Henry Ford offered his customers because his company’s first cars were all black. A revolutionary budding car company may have needed to economize on available car paint colors.
But a free country cannot economize on the ideas that may be offered, specially to young minds, and specially in a rapidly changing world that challenges American hegemony on every point. “We’re the greatest; and, if you don’t like it, we will …” take your pick in finishing this sentence: “deport you” in the case of the British immigrant broadcaster who challenged gun proliferation, “imprison you” in the case of the amateur movie-maker whose film was falsely used as a cover-up for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Ben Ghazi, Lybia, or “fire you” in the case of the Chapin teacher who naively stomped on the American Flag to teach his students the self-evident: a piece of cloth can be desecrated and even burned. But noble ideas survive.

As a staunch Christian, I have no problem at all with someone burning a Bible, or a thousand of them (although as an environmentalist, I would object on two fronts: the wasting of paper and the unnecessary smoke) because I know the the noble teachings of the Bible survived and will survive.

Any adverse action against that Chapin teacher will teach students across South Carolina the very wrong lesson: “Freedom is freedom to say what your superiors or the mob wants to hear.”

Without that teacher, and with all others intimidated, there will be no one teaching the students these important facts: The Constitution of the United States begins with three Articles. Article I is Congress. Article II is the President. Article III is the federal judiciary. It vest the “Judicial Power of the United States” in ne Supreme Court and “such inferior Courts as Congress shall estblish.” That one Supreme Court held 8-1 in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the American Flag. That was not just a liberal court. In 2011, Chief Justice Roberts wrote another 8-1 decision that the First Amendment protects hecklers of military funerals too.

I would also argue that the First Amendment PROTECTS the proverbial yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. Think about it. If there is a fire, you should so yell. Even there were non, what could happen? A well designed theater would have an impromptu fire drill. One lacking fire safety would be alerted to insufficient exits, etc., before it is too late. Don’t you wish someone had yelled “FIRE” in that Charleston sofa warehouse before there was a real fire?

junior justice January 14, 2013 at 10:54 am

Welcome back, but have you been drinking too much cough syrup again?

interested January 15, 2013 at 3:15 pm

you may NOT talk about my Aunt Whoopass like that! go read what she wrote again or more likely have someone read it to you and explain the big words. Kids should be exposed to a plethora of ideas. Flag stomping, hell puppy stomping, necrophilia, let them decide.

Robert January 14, 2013 at 10:10 am

I argued recently with two friends that are teachers. They are all for throwing this woman in jail.

No, I told them. Male or female, the age of consent is 17 and the woman should lose her teaching credentials, but not be criminal.

If these “boys” were not in her school, there would be no crime. That makes the law stupid if nothing else does.

Phonebooth Bob January 14, 2013 at 12:46 pm

That reasoning is not sound:

A man has consensual sex with a 10 year old, and we let him/her off because under some other circumstances (like a foreign country in which it is legal.)

The fact is, in the State of South Carolina, the sex was unlawful, and she should be punished.

No Stones January 14, 2013 at 10:13 am

This is absurd. The guys involved are not traumatized – and she needs help, not abuse. Families survive this sort of thing if left alone by the authorities and given access to professionals who know what to do. Of course she should resign and focus on getting her life straightened out and her kids protected. The husband should be left alone.

If she is pregnant, as the story implies, that’s another bag of diapers. Bringing a baby into the world through mattress dancing with boy toys is despicable. Lesson to the fellows out there. Wear a condom, dumbass – or be ready to shoulder some serious responsibility at a young age.

brushjumper January 14, 2013 at 10:20 am

Sure wish them boys would have called me in for some extra spanking

shifty henry January 14, 2013 at 10:44 am

…… don’t you mean that you wished that SHE would have called you in?

Pimples January 14, 2013 at 10:50 am

I could have used some hot teacher ass at 12!

jjevans January 14, 2013 at 11:14 am

Damn Right!

Raspy January 14, 2013 at 11:15 am

Me too! Hell, come to think of it, I could use some now, not that my chances of getting it are any better than they were when I was 12. :-(

JustSomeGuy January 24, 2013 at 12:58 am

My guess is you wouldn’t have known what to do with it.

bogart January 14, 2013 at 11:27 am

Sooooo,she was an “honors” teacher…..hard work should be rewarded.

Wondering January 14, 2013 at 11:28 am

Is her husband ditching the ho? Bet some of his ball players hit it at Spring Valley.

Journey January 14, 2013 at 11:58 am

Fits: in reference to Walter’s post, what if your daughter enjoyed it and was a willingly participant as you suggest the boys were at Dreher. What if it was a consensual relationship with your 16 yr old daughter which in no way constituted sexual abuse. Should the black mandingo just be fired or be arrested. If you think an arrest for the voluntary sex your 16 yr old provided is warranted, why in that scenario. An honest answer would be appreciated.

sid January 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm

I’m pretty sure Sic’s position was clearly stated as the hypothetical scenario should be a fireable offense, but not one that deserves jail time.

BTW, “black mandingo” is a redundancy.

bgm January 14, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Before I comment with my “opinion” I want to say that I am a teacher with 17 yrs of experience. This is tragic BUT at the same time I believe that it is VERY criminal. I am not trying to upset anyone who is looking at this from the “outside”. When I say outside I mean not in a position of trust like a teacher, police officer, doctor, clergy or anyone who is expected to uphold the public trust by virtue of their position. All teachers are public employees paid by tax payer money. Those taxpayer demand that teachers are held to a higher standard of conduct and rightfully so. ALL teacher know that this behavior is criminally wrong and know its consequences. If we were talking about a first or second year teacher I’m more apt to understand but not a teacher with a decade of experience. I am sorry that she and her family are suffering but I say own your actions. Get this person help but hold them responsible. Oh by the way don’t give me the “17 yr old knows better” line of crap. That dog don’t hunt in the world of adults.

SubZeroIQ January 14, 2013 at 12:49 pm

“An unconstitutional law is no law at all.” So wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in concurrence with a unaninous U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Bond v. United States.

IF THE LADAY IS REALLY ON SUICIDE WATCH, she should be IMMEDIATELY taken out of Alvin Glen S. Detention Center and taken to a hospital.

ASGDC has a dismal record of protecting inmates who are at risk of suicide or other health conditions.

Additionally, no female should be in ASGDC anyway, specially one charged with improper sexual contact.
State law requires the genders not be together in prison AT ALL TIMES. In reality, female inmates are exposed to male inmates at ASGDC all the time. And many female inmates are verbally cruel to others any way.

The lady’s LIFE is at risk. Take her out of there IMMEDIATELY!

kramhtims January 14, 2013 at 1:09 pm

@SubZeroIQ: What makes you think that she’s at Alvin Glenn and not in a mental treatment facility? Does her booking photo look like it was taken at Alvin Glenn? Have you wondered why she was out on $5k and $10k personal recognizance bonds (i.e. she didn’t have to put up any money)?

DAVIS January 14, 2013 at 1:34 pm

I am a retired teacher and I agree with you.I think that it evident that if this were a male teacher that people would view it as a crime that should be punished to the max.This woman was involved sexually with two different students within a short period of time and that to me means that she was in it for her sexual gratification and this cannot be considered a lapse in judgement on her part.

kramhtims January 14, 2013 at 1:05 pm

I hope that you are wrong about Kinsley bring pregnant. The situation is hard enough on her husband and children (who are 3 and 5 years old btw). They definitely don’t need the added difficulty that will come with a baby… and the baby doesn’t need that sh!t either.

Raf January 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm

Actually I think the implication was that one of her current children might not be her husbands

Raf January 14, 2013 at 1:08 pm

I think the student revealed it in counseling.

kramhtims January 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm

Damn. I hadn’t thought about that. I have a real hard time believing that those aren’t his kids but I guess family resemblance isn’t DNA. I sure hope that isn’t true.

SubZeroIQ January 14, 2013 at 1:18 pm

What is wrong with you people? A life is at stake and you are making juvenile jokes?
I assumed she was at ASGDC because, if she were in a private or public treatment facility the information should not have been released.
But I may have been wrong. There is no respect for privacy even when HIPPA says so.
Either way, only recently, an East Indian dedicated immigrant nurse and mother of two committed suicide as proximate result of that Kate practical joke.
Only this weekend, Erin Swartz, a young computer prodigy committed suicide in part as a result of rogue prosecution.

Of course, there are personal predispositions and co-morbidities that affect the final attempt, successful or not, of suicide.

But as a physician, human life is paramount for me. The jokes can wait or we can do without them. No joke is worth a human life.

Raf January 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Nobody is joking here. This is serious. Who said she was still in detention? If bond is being talked about she is likely in some other institution under watch.

kramhtims January 14, 2013 at 1:32 pm

HIPAA only applies to her healthcare providers. To the best of my knowledge no healthcare provider has released anything about the state of her mental health. FITS is just repeating a well known rumor. I heard from some credible sources at Dreher that the Columbia police went to arrest her at the school, she lost it and she left in an ambulance. I’m sure that he heard the same thing from someone connected with the school or maybe he just heard from someone in the police department. Either way it is common knowledge and as long as her healthcare providers don’t say anything no laws were broken.

Raf January 14, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Ah. Terrible. I was a teacher in SC (Charleston)in the 80s. This stuff is more common than many folks think. The age of social media is peeling back what was hidden for many years. It is so destructive to so many.

Raf January 14, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Ah. Terrible. I was a teacher in SC (Charleston)in the 80s. This stuff is more common than many folks think. The age of social media is peeling back what was hidden for many years.

Wondering January 14, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Put that whole pic up, you cropped out the big tit monster who is standing to her right.

conserve January 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Where there are two, there are probably more. Willing to bet.

Wondering January 14, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Is her husband at work?

Wes January 14, 2013 at 3:24 pm

Looking for a victim? How about the teaching profession…or being able to send your kids to school without worrying about someone abusing them who by the collectively spends more time with them than you do.
Everyone wants a victim….TRUST is a good start….

Dr. Obvious January 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm

All the speculation is wrong. This was a top notch teacher at Dreher – one of the best – and seemingly had a perfect family -but underneath the veneer, clearly something was seriously flawed. This lady needs psychatric help, not jail time. Her “victims” may as well, but the real victims here are the husband and kids. Pray for these people, and leave them alone. You do not know what issues they are dealing with or what caused her aberant behavior.

Buford Pusser January 14, 2013 at 3:55 pm

banged a guidance counselor in hs, no biggie…when she demanded I wear a rubber I knew it wasn’t her first rodeo…I was set for raw dog, but nope, not on her watch.

Thanks to her I got into a great university and even finished grad school…turned out well for me and iirc, she enjoyed it…thanks miss harpster!

Wondering January 14, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Kinsley Wentzky is a ho.
Suicide watch………….. really?
You did it, deal with it.

Wondering January 14, 2013 at 4:23 pm


Now Charlie needs to add “Kinsley you whore, you banged him in our house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Tom January 29, 2013 at 4:18 pm

Yep STD test and DNA the kids Charlie sorry.

TontoBubbaGoldstein January 14, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Maybe it came out because SHE was in therapy….

A psychiatrist was conducting group therapy with four young mothers and their small children. “You all have obsessions,” the doctor observed.
To the 1st mother, he said, “You are obsessed with eating. You’ve even named your daughter Candy.” He looks to the 2nd mother, “Your obsession is with money. Again, it manifests itself in your child’s name, Penny.” He looks to the 3rd mother. “Your obsession is alcohol. This manifests itself in your child’s name, Brandy.”
At this point, the 4th mother gets up, takes her little boy by the hand and says… “Come on, Dick, we’re leaving!”

shifty henry January 14, 2013 at 5:07 pm


Gastonite January 14, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I am guessing she will have to register as a sex offender for many years. Her teaching days are probably over for good. No matter where she moves, the sex offender thing will be a matter of public record. Kind of like Nick Savastano in Lexington. He has to register for life?

Christina January 16, 2013 at 12:53 pm

I agree with what you have said. However you need to report accurately her name is Kinsley not Kimberly. She was my favorite teacher in high school and this news is shocking and heartbreaking to me. I do believe what she did was wrong though and the boys knew what they were doing.

little rocky from arkansas January 16, 2013 at 3:10 pm

I would call her anything she wanted me to.

Wondering January 16, 2013 at 4:41 pm

Has Charlie ditched his ho yet?

Kris January 17, 2013 at 2:14 am

This article was written by someone who didn’t do their research. It speaks of male students being “willing participants” and thus not victims. Well lets do our work here. How many female students run crying rape and were not “willing participants” when the reverse is true? I got the answer…..NONE.
The fact is that gender of the student has no bearing on the degree of “victimization”. When adults involve minors in adult situations there is no way to predict what will happen…male or female. This article is not intelligent enough to base any conclusion if a criminal act has been committed. Since the law states teachers shall not have sexual relations with students then it looks pretty criminal to me.

SubZeroIQ January 17, 2013 at 6:36 am

The question is not whether she violated the law as written. The question is whether the law as written and/or as applied is unconstitutional.
I had, three days ago, posted a comment with a link to my opinion letter in The State of Thursday, 10 January 2012.

I understood that, because it has a link, it would await 24 hours for moderation; but I still do not see it.

Apparently, FITS would post any comment EXCEPT one that shows he copied my thoughts, in some areas almost verbatim.

When I first came to this country, I noticed that TV stations would run any ad EXCEPT their competitors’ notices.

But FITS, I am not anyone’s competition but my own. I have a moral obligation to share my knowledge and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Thanks and God bless.

Kris January 17, 2013 at 2:50 pm

The law is not unconstitutional. The basis of this law is very similar laws protecting someone from physical, verbal or sexual harassment in cases where a clear line of positional authority exists. As such this law applies to teachers, doctors, judges, clergy, police or elected officials or for that matter any official who holds a position of public trust.
Again it appears that many people need to justify criminality by the level of victimization. As a teacher I feel my profession is victimized every time this happens. The trust that parents demand in teachers is victimized. The act itself violates what is normal behavior between teachers and students and is criminal. I can’t be convinced to see it any other way.

Kris January 18, 2013 at 3:01 am

OK Let me clarify. When I mentioned other professions where an expected high degree of professional behavior is demanded it was not intended to illustrate that profession as having sex with those it comes in contact with either professionally or casually. It was intended to illustrate that those professions like a teachers have boundaries that if crossed are criminal and punishable by law.
Everyday when I accept students into my classroom I am assuming a role of “custodial control” over that group under the law. Because of that I am legally bound to behave in a certain manner. There are laws that specifically address behavior in a custodial role.
I’ll give you another example. Lets say someone agrees to take temporary custodial guardianship of a someone under 18. What happens if it is discovered that that person has sexually abused this person during the time of guardianship? It doesn’t matter if the “victim” consents. It is still a crime.
Also let me say that yes I agree with you that this person’s life is more important than what has happened here but to say that a crime has not been committed is as bad as saying “stone her” to death.

SubZeroIQ January 17, 2013 at 4:16 pm

But THIS law does NOT apply to “doctors, judges, police or elected officials.” You are thinking of laws against misuse of office and these apply regardless of the age of the sexual partner.
For doctors (and now lawyers) it is a violation of the ethics of the profession for the professional to have sexual relations with patients or clients, respectively, if the latter are in a vulnerable position regardless of age. Such acts could bring professional disciplinary actions, but NOT CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

Not everything that is not “normal” is criminal. At least in a country supposedly governed by a Constitution which requires equal protection and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, people should not be incarcerated because they offend others’ sense of decency.
It was not “normal” (and I know it is only a movie) for Mrs. Robinson to have sex with Ben. But remember that Jesus Christ refused to stone to death the serial adultress who was caught in the act. Instead, he saved her life.

If you are a teacher, think about ways you can help save the life and the career of a colleague who erred grievously. Isn’t that what teachers do for students: correct them?
God bless.

The Big Paaschtuukaa January 17, 2013 at 5:53 pm

Are you able to help this woman?

Kris January 18, 2013 at 3:02 am

OK Let me clarify. When I mentioned other professions where an expected high degree of professional behavior is demanded it was not intended to illustrate that profession as having sex with those it comes in contact with either professionally or casually. It was intended to illustrate that those professions like a teachers have boundaries that if crossed are criminal and punishable by law.
Everyday when I accept students into my classroom I am assuming a role of “custodial control” over that group under the law. Because of that I am legally bound to behave in a certain manner. There are laws that specifically address behavior in a custodial role.
I’ll give you another example. Lets say someone agrees to take temporary custodial guardianship of a someone under 18. What happens if it is discovered that that person has sexually abused this person during the time of guardianship? It doesn’t matter if the “victim” consents. It is still a crime.
Also let me say that yes I agree with you that this person’s life is more important than what has happened here but to say that a crime has not been committed is as bad as saying “stone her” to death.

SubZeroIQ January 17, 2013 at 6:00 pm

To The Big Paaschtuukaa:
First, as in “First, do no harm,” I hope I have not harmed her.
I put out the ideas that the law is unconstitutional, that (if she is a suicide risk) people should withhold the juvenile jokes, and that no one is beyond redemption.
If you have more ideas, please put them out and I shall, God willing, see if I can help.
God save us from evil.

The Big Paaschtuukaa January 17, 2013 at 6:26 pm

I have no suggestions for you in this situation. The only information I have is what is published.

SubZeroIQ January 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm

First, thank you for raising the level of discussion above profanities and personal attacks.

Second, there is a huge difference between sin and crime.

To me, as a Christian, failure to love one’s neighbor is a sin. But the Constitutional ardent in me shudders at making it a crime.

Third, those boys were not in her custody when she had sex with them. She did not have sex in the classroom as far as it is reported. Once your students leave your classroom, you are not legally responsible, under penalty of criminal law, for what they do, unless you had somehow conspired with them or pressured them to do something that is PER SE (meaning in and of itself) illegal, such as slashing someone’s tires or robbing a bank.

For a seventeen-year old to have mutually-consensual sex in a private residence with another adult is not PER SE illegal unless prostitution is involved. So, it should not be a crime if a teacher does it. Besides, would you view it as a crime if the teacher were single and married her seventeen-year old student? Or if the genders were reversed, if a 21-y.o. male teacher fell in love with a 16-y.o. female student and married her, would the sex between them be a crime?
Making acts not PER SE criminal crimes if teachers do them does not honor the teaching profession, it demeans it. It also opens teachers, specially female teachers, to false charges which happen all too often.
Kris, I want to support the flag-stomping teacher too; but I have very little time. If I do not respond to your further posts, it is because I am too busy, not because I am ignoring you.
God bless.

Wondering January 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Isn’t adultery still on the books as illegal?

Kris January 19, 2013 at 6:38 am

First no offense taken here. I understand your viewpoint and respect it and although I haven’t commented on it I too think the most important thing is to get this person help and get her to a safe place mentally.
Basically my contention with this article is how little thought its author puts into it before asking the question it does. I can only speak to the students I see everyday and based on how they act I can say 80% of them are not mentally or behaviorally functioning on an adult level. Most of them would be taken advantage of if placed in similar situations as we are discussing here.
The law cannot be written to protect a target audience if it was it would be a nightmare trying to determine which 17 yr old was a “victim” and which wasn’t. So it takes a stand for better or worse. But remember that this teacher knew before hand that this activity was under the law criminal and still chose to violate it.
What did she expect if she was caught? It has been put forth that she had taught at least one of these students which then would mean that the relationship was fostered while she was place in positional authority over this student. Again this whole situation does not happen if the adult acts responsibly.
Thank you for your opinion.

Jett Rucker January 25, 2013 at 9:25 pm

I started college at age 17. Unbeknownst to me, that college had a rule (declaration, actually) that sexual relations between students and faculty were not a matter of concern to the administration (look it up – University of Miami). The theory was that students were adults.

Admittedly, when I was in high school earlier that same year, I was a younger 17 (and had sexual relations with a NON-faculty member, as it turns out, though she WAS 4 months older than I was).

It seems to me that we’re slicing it pretty thin, here. By the way, children are COMPELLED to attend school in my state until age 16. After that age, they’re CONSENSUAL students. Well, students, anyway, but maybe not sexual partners?

Wondering January 29, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Ditch the Ho

Wondering January 31, 2013 at 9:30 am


Who is the brunette big tit monster she is with?
I want to know this woman.

I love the big saggers.


Leave a Comment