Paedophile teacher who had sex with two boys is struck off
Rebecca Joynes is currently serving a six and a half year prison sentence
A teacher who was convicted for having sex with two boys, becoming pregnant by one, has been banned from the profession.
Maths teacher Rebecca Joynes, 31, was jailed for six and a half years in July last year after being found guilty of six counts of sexual activity with a child, after sleeping with one pupil before falling pregnant by a second while on police bail.
The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) convened earlier this month via a virtual hearing, which Joynes did not attend, to consider her professional conduct. A panel recommended she be banned from teaching.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rebecca-joynes-banned-teaching-pupil-baby-b2890310.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world403
Comments207
Rape. She raped those boys. Use the correct terminology.
Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK at least from what I remember.
Then the UK is wrong.
They define rape as penetration
Good news is she did seem to actually be punished with a sizable prison sentence (by uk standards)
She got pregnant, so I'm pretty sure there was penetration
No only the person who does the penetration can rape under uk law.
The more I hear about that place the less it makes sense
The more I hear about that place the more it makes sense how America got where it is.
I dunno. I almost think there should be a different term or word for it. I'm not saying it's OK at all, I just think bundling so many sexual crimes under one name isn't great.
For example; I was a horny teen and probably would have been into a teacher like that. It would have been wrong and it likely would have messed up different aspects of my life. I'm not condoning it or trying to downplaying it, but I feel if I had been violently penetrated against my will by a male teacher the trauma would be a whole different kind.
So yeah, I don't know if we should call it rape, but I recognize the boys were underage and taken advantage of, and the crime absolutely deserves to be punished. I'm also the person who get's all worked up by modern loose usage of terms like WMD and many others, so I know I can be a handful.
Maybe that young girl wanted to have sex with an older man? Maybe there was no force involved at all?
NOOOOOO!!! RAPE IS RAPE! SIMPLE AS THAT!
I get that you want to separate sex by force from sex by free will but when it comes to kids there can never be consent and it defaults to rape. It should not be minimized just because a female teacher raped young boys.
Edit: If you want a different definition for what happens to someone being forced or not you could call it rape with assault or rape with {whatever}. I don't think the rape part should be minimized in any way. Just extended in brutality if anything.
I don't think they were trying to say that it should be minimised. But we should define crimes precisely. After all we make a distinction between murder by intent, murder by negligence, and murder by proxy. They're all still murder, and they all still result in lifetime sentences, but we make the distinction.
And those crimes are all called murder with additioal context added. Calling a rape something other than rape is minimizing it. We don't need "another word" for rape.
The issue with that definition, legally, is if two 12 year olds have sex with each other, they would now both end up in jail.
Things like that have happened in the USA btw because the law is set that way.
The problem isn't whether they can or can't consent at that age - humans don't magically gain some universal phenomena of consent at some arbitrary number.
It's the lack of foresight and knowledge of consequences, as well as the physical and mental health risks for young girls who get pregnant. That's why it's bad.
That's also why the best defense against pedophilia is education about sex. And why the right wing globally usually is against sex education.
If they know what it is and what it can cause, it'll be much harder for them to be convinced or tricked by an adult.
I really don't get what you are trying to say here.
So what does the law in the US say now then? That the boy gets thrown in jail?
Why would you not make exceptions for kids under the age of 15 to have sex with kids under 15 and kids over 15 but under 18 to have sex with kids over 15 but under 18? Granted that they both gave consent.
In normal countries a kid can not consent to have sex with adults and it would be defined as rape and general sexual education is not frowned upon.
The US las varies by state, but in some cases only the boy goes to jail. In other both go to jail.
Even your proposal of
Has issues. For example, if two teens were already having sex at 14 but one turns 15, although legal before, it's suddenly illegal, even if consenting.
Same with 17 to 18.
That's why your statement of "underage automatically does not equal consent" doesn't legally work.
What I think would work better than a simple lower limit age ban would be to also include an upper limit age ban as well. I think perhaps of 2 years for 13 and under and 3 years for 14-18.
That way, if say a 17 year old has a partner that turns 18 or 19, there's no issues. But if an adult that's 22 (or older) does something with a 17 year old it's illegal.
This gives room for consent, because teens are able to consent - they should just be able to do so safely with their peers, rather than because they are targeted by older, more experienced/manipulative adults.
As per usual.
In a lot of jurisdictions rape is definited in that narrow way, but there is a crime with equal punishment that catches the rest of sexual crimes that you might call rape in america.
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage, ergo could not give consent, ergo it was rape. Also power dynamics teacher pupil makes it even more rapey
In the UK, the definition of rape requires penetration from the offending party by their genitalia. So unless the teacher has a monster clit she used to anally penetrate the boys, the definition of rape can't apply. For that there's the broader definition of sexual assault.
Journalists, since their purpose is to serve the public with the truth, have to really carefully choose their words as using the wrong legal term can get them in hot water - libel lawsuits and such, not to mention accusations of trying to shape the public's opinion, and so on.
So yeah, you'll rarely find directly said out statements in the news as most journos will try to get to as close to the definition as possible without exposing themselves to legal action. That's why you'll often see e.g. statements like "the purported killer" even if there's clear evidence of the person being the murderer, simply because the case hasn't been judged yet therefore the legal term murderer - which requires a conviction - cannot be applied, and using it before the trial even happens is a big no-no.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you that if it was a man with two young girls, the article would be going on the offensive much quicker, and even here they should've used the term "sexually assaulted" instead of "had sex with", but specifically the term rape cannot apply here.
Thank you for the informative reply. As a layman in another country who isn't worried about specific local laws, I'd like to add that she raped at least two children.
New York had (has?) a similar distinction. It came up in the E Jean Carrol saga; specifically Trump suing for defamation after her lawsuit, because it wasn’t- technically- rape.
IIRC it was dismissed with the judge saying that it fits the modern lay definition of rape and that’s not defamation.
They didn’t call it “sexual assault” either, so I’m inclined to not accept that excuse.
So, like not using an object of some sort?
Still seems like a more generic term such as "sexual assault" would be applicable here.
It would, but that's a very broad term. I expect they were trying to be specific, but only succeeded in being forgiving in the headline.
Til. So in the UK only men (or those with dicks) can rape?
So the IDF can bring their dogs and iron bars, to the UK, and that's not rape...
... Gets me wondering wtf law makers in the UK are up to.
The UK's law is precedent based. The definition of rape thus goes back all the way to the 1800s (like many other restrictive laws that need to be revisited, e.g. classifying any transportation device with any kind of engine, i.e. not human or animal propelled, as a vehicle thus forcing the owners of e.g. low end e-scooters to have licences, registration, insurance etc. without providing the framework for any of these), wherein rape was almost exclusively committed by men, therefore lawmakers found it proper to define it as penetration of the victim using one's genitalia - in a way to differentiate from "lesser" sexual assaults like flashing someone or forcing their hands on said genitalia.
I agree, but there are libel laws to consider here. It serves no one to open yourself up to a lawsuit, especially one from which the rapist can only benefit.
Thankfully I'm not a citizen of TERF Island. She raped them.
Hi! I'm not worried about being sued. She raped at least two children.
I was more referring to the news outlet. Regular folks like you and I aren't much at risk of being sued for libel.
Trump: hold my 12 year old… beer
iftfy
I don't think someone would win the libel case and bad cases SLAP lawsuits aren't really a meaningful thing here (we have protections against shit lawsuits)
Underage is literally a legal definition, so clearly you do care. Calm down.
I agree with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.
methinks yes?
if not you, then at least journalistic integrity in the UK does
Blatantly, by the very next words.
Which is fucked up frankly because that's clearly not true.
I'm going to take a guess that, if they were over the age of consent, it would have been consensual.
That does not matter lmao
Why not? The law is made up, you know.
that would be to 'harsh'
You need me to tiktok it to you? it is r*pe
Like I just said within my reply to the original post:
So (unless the thing the other reply to this said ["Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK"] is true), then, that's "statutory rape" [regardless of their informed consent]. Yup. Though I'm not convinced it's necessarily "correct".
She really can't stop fucking kids, can she?
Maybe she has a future in US government
US Government? She's already in the UK, why would she leave a Pro League to go an Amatuer one?
You think he's the only one? Not a chance...
You know what though? That is more than the US has ever done with high-ranking politicians.
"Y'all aint got nuthin on Savile."
Or so we like to think, hoping the world's not even worse than that. ... But it is.
"This would be hilarious, if it wasn't so depressing." - M. Lermontov
She forgot to be a billionaire
She also forgot to be a man
Give some examples of male teachers having sex with students who were caught and walked free.
Bruce Siewerth. Want more? Internet searches are easy.
He got away because the statute of limitations had long run out, not because some idea you have that male pedos aren't prosecuted.
I thought there were no statute of limitations on stuff like this...
... Jeez!
Oh, can include priests then?
That is the church protecting their own, who are by necessity men. You are insinuating that men, specifically because they are men, are let free when they commit sexual abuse, which is simply not the case, unless they're billionaires.
Yawn. Keep moving that bar.
Whether we call it rape or not, is less relevant than the real world UK offences and sentencing guide for sex with a minor. She will serve her time, be on a sex offenders register for life, never work in teaching again and an indelible record that will show up on any safeguarding checks.
Here in the UK, our issue is that women and girls are told by the likes of Tommy (shit-for-brains) Robinson to look out for brown, black or Muslim people. Every week, women and girls have drinks spiked andraped by local white men, or are raped by people known and close to them.
This story will get some headline news because she's an attractive white woman. If it was a brown, black, Muslim male, preferably with a beard, then we would be seeing widespread fear mongering by almost every news site.
Paedophile teacher who raped two boys is struck off
Edit: at least six rape apologists didn't appreciate my headline correction.
Well the boys were 15 and 16, past puberty, so it's not paedophilia. She still belongs behind bars, I'm your friendly neighbourhood language officer.
Fine.
She raped minors.
I would like to welcome Rebecca Joyner to her future career in the Trump administration.
I always find this expression incredibly strange.
Obligatory
Wut? There was a invistgation on this? what evidence would outweigh???
“When she’s not busy raping her students, she’s actually a pretty decent teacher.”
"She tries not to rape any kids on her way to bathroom"
Shed still have the criminal consequences, but maybe there is stratification for teaching bans. I.e., university level allowed and primary banned. Unlikely there's a rape stipend extended except for tenored professors.
Based on what I see in Hollywood and politics lately im wondering if there is some fine print somewhere the public doesnt know about.
Why do this? There's millions of legal age men who would love to start a family with this crazy woman. Why did she rape kids?
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/former-maths-teacher-rebecca-joynes-banned-from-teaching-after-grooming-two-school-boys/news-story/0fe2070f15e4694d585491d7ea183cdb
One kid was 15, the other 16.
She was 30 or 31.
... the answer is because she's a groomer, a pedophile, by how those terms are generally used.
She gets off on the power imbalance, she gets off on manipulating and exploiting those who don't and can't reasonably be expected to know better.
She either wouldn't prefer to be or just couldn't be in a relationship with someone on an equal playing field.
She's a sexual predator, the kind you'd stereotypically call Chris Hansen to investigate.
We don't get to choose who and what we are attracted to. 🤷🏻♂️ However, that does not absolve one of immoral actions.
... Imagine saying this regarding a male teacher aged 30/31 who groomed a 15 year old and 16 year old student, and got the 15 year old student pregnant.
(This woman got pregnant by the 15 yo student she groomed... and she had that child.)
"Oh I dunno, I guess some people are attracted to kids! 🤷 Its a bad thing to do though."
What the fuck.
No, its a lot more than just a bad thing, merely immoral actions. Its three innocent lives massively damaged, thrown off course, poetentially fucked up for life, because of the manipulative and selfish actions of a person in a position of trust and authority absuing that trust and authority.
And yeah its three lives, not two, because there's no way this doesn't massively negatively affect the life of her baby.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/former-maths-teacher-rebecca-joynes-banned-from-teaching-after-grooming-two-school-boys/news-story/0fe2070f15e4694d585491d7ea183cdb
... this woman is a serial sexual predator, who pursued the second relationship after being investigated for the first one and more or less getting away with a slap on the wrist.
Thats not just 'immoral actions', it's basically downright evil, which, according to the judge of the most recent trial, was carried out with "breathtaking gall" and "astonishing arrogance."
Downplaying the magnitude of how fucked up this is, is itself fucked up.
"MAP" type excusatory bullshit, fuck off. Pedophilia is not a sexuality because "child" is not a sex or gender expression.
I don't understand how that comment was excusing anything. They explicitly said that it was inexcusable.
Yeah, but prefaced it by saying you can't help who or what you're attracted to. Right out of the MAP playbook. The thoughts and attraction in itself is a problem and requires counselling because "children" are not a sexuality. You can and should help what you're attracted to when that what is a child! If you're having suicidal thoughts, you should see a counsellor. If you're having thoughts about harming others, you should see a counsellor. If you're having thoughts about diddling kids, you. should. see. a. counsellor.
Do you accept that people can prefer partners older or younger than them? If so, do you really think that's something that can be dealt with by some kind of "conversion therapy"?
Bizarre equivalencies here. Firstly, regardless of my personal beliefs on large age gaps, those are consenting adults. You're equating them to children. Children are not consenting adults, it is a problem if you feel sexual attraction to them. Same thing with animals. They cannot consent. You have some really messed up ideals if you're equating psychiatry and therapy, especially modern-day versions of them, to conversion therapy forced onto gay people. This is exactly why I called it excusatory MAP bullshit because you go right down this slippery slope. Being sexually attracted to children is not a sexuality.
What does consent have to do with attraction?
No one's disagreeing that it's wrong and needs to be addressed. The disagreement is on whether pedophiles get to choose who they're attracted to. This is an important distinction because firstly, the origin of their thoughts/actions determines the course of action necessary to keep it in check. Second, shaming someone for something they can't control is one of the most effective ways of discouraging treatment. Third, that wasn't a preface. It was the answer to the question they responded to.
Regarding suicidality: I believe that the approach of stigmatizing and criminalizing was often taken in the past and found to be ineffective. I've been seeing a big movement towards more open dialogue and encouraging treatment in the past decades.
And I'm disagreeing that pedophiles can't help their feelings. This dialogue only occurs because of the recent conflation between sexuality and pedophilia. I've always been of the opinion that they need to see a professional, and that needs to be a non-negotiable. I reject any conversation on their feelings being a choice because as evidenced in this thread, people conflate ideas that apply to sexuality to pedophiles. I just responded to someone who accused me of arguing for conversion therapy. It's pedophilia, it needs to stay stigmatised because of how huge the consequences are if they act on it.
I think you and shalafi might be using different definitions of "gets to choose". Using a depressed person as an analogy since I think this is better understood: You don't get to choose to be happy, but you can choose to take steps towards getting help so that you can better manage it. It sounds like they're talking about the former while you're talking about the latter.
Similarly with stigmatization. It's one thing to stigmatize acting on your suicidal ideation. It's another to stigmatize having suicidal ideation in the first place.
Nonononono NO.
Child rape teachers are knowingly taking advantage of social trust in order to exploit kids. Absolutely nothing in the ball park of "pedos can't help it". Rape is not a kink, fetish or identity, it's a selfish, harmful, devastating crime with decades of repurcussions.
Please, I implore you to please never use this type of LGBTQIA acceptance language for pedophila. Child rapists are light-years away from two queer consenting adults and conflating the two only harms the innocent.
Do you have an issue reading entire comments?
No I agree that I don’t want to hear pedophilia talked about as a form of sexual attraction. It is inherently predatory and should not be mentioned as just what some people happen to be attracted to.
*you know, even with an asterisk at the end to say that sure it’s wrong
When discussing attraction to children is the cope of pedophiles. I don't buy this shit.
You're trying to make space for pedos by weaponizing queer acceptance. Fucking stop it.
So, they do choose who they're attracted to?
Question was asked & answered. Not liking the answer doesn't make it less true. Deal with it.
Gross. "map" is just pedo apologia.
No, and no, Fuck you and fuck your pedo friends trying to pretend that your predation on children is anything near the same thing as queer acceptance. You're sick and actively doing harm to LGBT communities and acceptance by trying to equivocate the two. Having a kink for raping kids isnt a sexuality, quit pretending that it is.
She’s a pedophile, that’s why.
.mentally ill
I am. Phrasing!
She is an amateur. She should just say that she didn't know them and it's certainly a democrats conspiracy.
Invoke the Jewish space lasers and it’s all suddenly Hilary’s fault via Hunters laptop. Blatant grift has been going on so long it should just be a class in school now
This is sickening! The fact that she only got six years is a severe injustice to those two boys and the unfortunate child that was conceived in such a manner. Let's not "both sides" this: sex abuse is sex abuse. As @[email protected] pointed out, this will probably get some attention among far-right chuds for about week and get forgotten. It won't solve any issues and one more kid will fall into that hateful ideology. I hope the two boys get the help they need and that baby gets a good family that will look after it.
(Also, I had to look up what "Ann Summers" was in the context of this story and now I feel like shooting my laptop)
Usually that would be true, but Farage is keeping his head down at the moment. No doubt 30p will say something incoherent and quite possibly untrue about all of this, but no one listens to anything he says anyway.
Looked it up to ..
A literal scratchcard in other words..
Exactly, the right wing fucks are going to derail & corrupt this issue with their brainrot & the left are already misandric enough.
Oh too, late both of those chucklefucks are already here.
So now the administration just needs to pardon her and make her Secretary of Education. Causes that's fucking on brand for this shit show.
They'd struggle to pardon someone in the UK.
Ya know what...I could see it happening. It wouldn't do anything. But it's not the most ridiculous thing this timeline has offered.
Trump has already tried to pardon people he can't pardon (due to the crime being state law rather than federal). He would absolutely try to pardon people in other countries.
I'm willing to bet quite a lot of money that Trump will never even find out about her. It's not happening in the US and I doubt his supporters care about international news, so there's no reason for any of his aids even to tell him.
you don't think they'd bomb the convoy in a prisoner transfer and bring her back to the US or something?
because it's not a non-zero chance nowadays
What convoy? She's a sexual abuser of little kids, not some hyper dangerous international red room assassin, she doesn't need an armed escort. They are just going to put her in the back of a police car with the child locks on.
Bad wording that...Struck off is also slang for "masturbation"
Dang.
They're all going to learn that society doesn't give a damn about them.
I mean maths does have a tendency to be a bit dry and it's hard to get kids to engage with but I feel like this is going to be too far.
Great, so now France has two more Presidents?
Trump wants to lit her in charge of the US Department of Education. PS: If you support Trump, you support child rape.
How did this become about Trump?
Nice.
found a nonce
Would you say the same thing if the genders were reversed (31 year old male teacher with 15 and 16 year old female students)? What's the difference?
I’m just quoting South Park.
You might want to consider context, or a visual aid in the future - because, yeah, you come off as a nonce.
Example of how to do it properly
You might want to consider less virtue signalling.
Oh this is funny to you.
Nope. Did you watch the South Park episode?
Why would anyone?
It’s always good to have an opinion about something you don’t know about.
I watched that shit show until it jumped the shark
Either way, time and a place for a crass joke, that weren't it bruv
Ah, so nonce with no taste
? Are you familiar with the point of the South Park episode?
Don’t assign so much meaning to a single word from somebody you don’t know.
If it came out after the South Park movie, then no, cause that's when they jumped the shark
And when they started getting in bed with the fascy types
The episode came out like 20 years ago.
Real smooth, like the cha-cha
too british. i'm out.
"British" "Their English isn't the best"
There was another off before having gotten struck off, which is the least off color way of putting it.
Dammit, where were all these sexed-up teachers when I was a kid?
Fucking the hot students.
Roasted
I’d be pissed off if I wasn’t laughing so hard.
Bro… I thought we were friends now you’re telling me I’m ugly.
To be fair, I only said you were ugly as a student.
Wow, you were not who I thought you were.
You need to very seriously consider your options when it comes to designing and expressing your personality.
You seem to be under the false impression that what they said isn't a widely held opinion among men.
Almost everyone who has been a teenage boy knows the fantasies of teenage boys. Yes, there's good reasons this is considered criminal conduct, and teenagers at that age can't legally consent for the same reasons, but in a consensual scenario, such an experience does not have to cause any kind of trauma or harm.
PS: The teenage boy in me thinks "nicceeeee". Pardon.
Agreed. My issue here is the pitchfork mob mentality around it, it's like, if you don't scream and froth whenever this subject comes up then you become guilty by association.
From a social psychological standpoint it is functionally equivalent to people spitting and throwing eggs at condemned people at the gallows, or witch processes. It's deeply disconcerting to me that they can't seem to control their emotions and whip each other into a fervor not unlike religious fundamentalists. It is how groupthink happens. And genocides.
It has sadly become consensus to try and distance oneself by being part of the pitchfork mob. And I haven't found an age mentioned in the article - e.g. the age of consent in Germany is 16 IIRC, in which case the legal problem is when the older person has a position of authority / responsibility, not the actual age. And - age of consent or not - a relationship with a big age difference among adults is also creepy.
Anyways, I remember my thoughts as a teenage boy and I would definitely - even in hindsight decades later now - have fantasized about this ^^ Even though I would have probably chickened out g
One was 15. Not sure about the other. Lots of articles on this over the years.
Age of consent in the uk is 16 too.
It's actually 14, but only if the older one is younger than 21 or they aren't taking advantage of the younger ones lack of ability to make informed sexual decisions. If the older person has authority over the younger one (e.g. a teacher) the age of consent is 18.
IIRC, If within 5 years difference, can be 14 in UK too.
It’s a fucking South Park quote and you’re over analyzing this shit.
I'm gonna watch this episode when I get home. 😁
Paying child support to your rapist doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
Child support is for the child. The child is legally & morally entitled to full support regardless of how it was conceived.
Yes but the payments are made to the child's guardian. Meaning that a victim of rape will be forced to make payments to their abuser directly because of the rape, which I think is morally indefensible.
Not to mention that the rape victim is, themselves, a child.
But really, my comment wasn't meant to be a commentary on the child support system itself. Rather calling out a flippant remark that dismissed the gravity of the situation.
Not necessarily: it can be made to a trust or an agency per legal arrangement. Regardless, it's still the child's & not parent's, and it's both morally & legally necessary. Money is fungible: whatever in excess of their share a custodian pays for childcare needs to be paid back by the non-custodial parents. Charges of fraud may be pursued for misspent funds.
eww, go fuck yourself
How exactly would that work?
I'm suddenly reminded of a certain South Park episode
The problem with this arguement is that you can't explain ephebophelia without sounding like a fucking pedophile
It is a distinction, but without a difference to anyone not using the DSM-5 regularly.
Always pops up on these threads though, same way any thread with a pickup truck leads to 900 people showing up to explain why they NEED that pavement princess F-450
Check this guy's hard drive
Check the hard drives of those who downvoted that post about the need to protect children.
o_O You're saying I'm a sicko for wanting to protect children? ...?
I guess someone should check mojofrododojo's hard drive too.
Check my hard drives all you want. A teenager is not exactly the same thing as a child.
Pretending otherwise is counterproductive, and just reads as trying to prove you're not a pedo very hard.
I'm glad you want to protect children, and that you're rightly outraged upon perceiving a threat to them, but, there's a lot to unpick there.
This is a strawman argument, and a rather extreme one, built in part on cherry-picking [(not to mention ad-hominem, red-herring, false equivalence, appeal to emotion, slippery slope fallacy, self contradiction)], and on larger part, non-sequitur, apparently. Wanting to have more nuanced terminology for this is not justifying the rape of anyone. Quite the contrary. Facilitating better communication will help reduce harms.
And speaking of reducing harms, do you have any suggestion for the crux of the dilemma I posed? Given that our current system is increasing the child abuse: How are we to better protect children?
Or maybe you still insist on equivalence under law of a 15 year old having sex, and an under 10...? I'd like to hear your reasoning for that, if you're willing to offer it. You may have a good point I had not thought of... You might be right, and convince me to your way of thinking, ~ though it escapes me how from here, I remain open minded.
Or, if it's just emotional catharsis you need, you could continue to spit unfounded hate at me, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I say, while the abuse carries on in the background unabated.
The difference is mostly useful for psychiatry it is useless here.
In every case they had sexual relations with a minor in their care. that is still rape. no matter if they are 8 or 10 or 12 or 16, still rape.
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is no difference. Apart from ages of consent being different among different countries (greetings from a place where you can have sexual relations from 14 years onwards), which already points at a grey zone for an age of maturity, I would ague that the physical and mental damage is different. A 15 or 16 year old might already have had some sexual experiences, or will have at least heard of what sex is, and (more or less) understand what is happening. The younger the child, the greater the damage to the body, and a child that doesn't even know what sex is yet will carry a different kind of mental trauma from the assault.
I'll also include the mandatory paragraph about a philia not being a felony in itself. Why it's important is not just out of respect and support for non offending minor attracted persons who will be less likely to come out and seek help with a witch hunt for people with their orientation, but also to raise the absolutely necessary awareness that a great chunk of minor sexual assault cases are committed not by people with a -philia, but by people with regular (i.e. adult) sexual orientations. So you are not safe just because the person in question is proven not to have an attraction towards minors.
It's funny how we spent the whole last decade stating that language matters, but somehow when it comes to pedophilia, everyone stops caring about correct language.
the crime is still the same. rape.
you can tell me it's a red car or a yellow car, and maybe the difference is relevant in some contexts, but not if we're talking about someone running over minors with that car.
the difference makes sense in psychiatry, not legally. that difference makes no difference to the victim.
is it different raping a toddler than a 16 year old student? yes, is it still rape? yes.
I agree. It is still rape.
And yet we differentiate rapes in the legal system, or don't we? We look at the circumstances. The whole debate here ensured because we brought the term pedophile into it. Even if you take the word in its wrong sense - as someone who is having [illegal] sex with a minor - you now specified the rape.
As in this case, it was statutory rape. As someone else pointed out, the second boy the teacher had sex with was 16, which is the age of consent in the UK. So if he was a student at another school, and she had had sex with him, she would be legally in the clear - no crime and no pedo. So now her being a pedophile or not depends on the school the boy is going to? Had she been a teacher at a school in Germany she could have legally had sex with both boys, provided they weren't in her class. Yet what she did was illegal and statutory rape. You're unnecessarily bringing pathological attraction into a rape case.
I'd also argue that motive matters. Is she attracted to younger boys only? Or does she get off on the fact that they are her subordinates? This matters for prevention.
I don't know about the way sentencing in the UK works, but I sincerely hope that a person who rapes a 10 year old gets a harsher sentence than someone who committed statutory rape with a 16 year old.
In your car metaphor - she drove the car into people. Does this make every car driver a murderer in the making? And are motorcyclists in the clear because they cannot drive a car into people?
you lost me there, the point of the metaphor is that while some attributes are relevant in some context, it is irrelevant here. That teacher had sex with minors. that is rape and a big no no, if it was his teacher then the age of consent is 18.
and honestly, the walls of text defending the difference between tiers of being a nonce is quite sus. No one spends that much energy defending pedos unless they are one or you are their lawyer,.
Every goddamn one of these threads someone tries to discuss what it means to rape or to be a paedophile, and someone calls them a paedophile. We have criminal law because we, as a society, decided that some things are bad. We have different words for different crimes because, as it turns out, not every crime is the same. Manslaughter isn't first degree murder. Theft under $5000 isn't theft over $5000 because one is worse. Rape at knifepoint is not only arguably worse, it's definitively worse than statutory rape. No one said any of these crimes aren't "A big no no."
Yep. And most unfortunately, as my (now mod-removed) original reply alluded to, prohibition does not prevent, making the good things bad and the bad things worse. Worsened further yet by the conflation and false equivocation.
As the key line from my original reply explicitly concludes:
Glad someone gets it.
Boggles my mind that my post about needing to protect children got downvoted.
Glad yours is getting upvoted.
I'm glad you feel a bit supported, I was also very sad to see how your comment got so many downvotes. But unfortunately that is common on lemmy, I got tons of downvotes last time I argued that round.
Not if 16. UK.
Why's that getting downvoted?
Age of consent is 16 in the UK.
Is just a plain simple factual correction.
Doubt they read it, probably just downvoted all your shit because some people make up their minds by the end of the first sentence. Everything else is just a bingo card to find what lines up with what they already believe.
The power differential makes it rape.
You must be fun to be around.
You're a mesophile?
A mesophile is an organism, often a microorganism, that thrives in moderate temperatures, typically between 20°C and 45°C (68°F to 113°F), with an optimum growth temperature around 37°C (98.6°F). These organisms are commonly found in environments like cheese, yogurt, and during the fermentation processes in beer and wine making.
Or are you trying to say your just a pedophile who is in the middle.
Fun homonym.
Mesophilia, loving the middle, in this context, as wikipedia says:
Sorry, I thought that term was better known, and that context would have averted any confusion.
The article doesn't mention ages, but another article says she groomed them from age 15.
However, I have to remind you that language is under constant development, and "paedophile" has long lost its original meaning. It now covers a much wider age range, although counting adolescents is a stretch.
In that case we need a new word for people who have the urge to have romantic and/or sexual relations with prepubescent children. Hopefully one with less of a stigma, so these people have an easier time to come out and seek mental treatment to prevent them from acting on their urges.
You know what, that's probably the best suggestion I've heard on this topic in a while. You're right, "pedophile" as a word is just completely ruined. You can probably go about and raise awareness as much as you want and demand a correct use of the word, but at the end of the day, the societal connotation is there and you won't get it off the word anymore. Maybe a new word would really be the easiest way to go.
It is like, people, in their stunted vocabularies, have reached for pederast, but not knowing it, just used paedophile instead.
Even though I know the word pederast, from hearing paedophile so much in context of sexual abuse of children, when I hear paedophile, I think of it more like pederast.
To be honest, I think this is the first time I have even heard the term pederast. I'll keep that in mind for future discussions, thanks.
Ok weird guy.
This wasn't paedophile apologia and it's fucking ridiculous it was taken down.
The age of consent where I live is 16, with 14-15 year olds able to have sexual relationships with people up to five years older. The teacher is a predator, an abuser, an asshole, and a statutory rapist, but not a paedophile. She may also be a paedophile, but nothing in the article indicates she was. We should reserve that word for people who deserve it.
In order to understand why paedophilia is terrible we need to be able to discuss what it means. Defining a crime isn't apologia, it's how we figure out what is a crime in the first place. I don't want to see "Paedophile" go the way of "Fascist."
The Independent has no place on a site or community opposed to misinformation unless it's clearly labelled a tabloid. It's part owned by a fucking sultan, not independent, and failed multiple fact checks over the last few years. It's blatant misinformation to call the teacher a paedophile when that word doesn't even have a legal definition in the UK with regard to criminal law.
Yep. Blows my mind. Would love to know what the hell triggered people to downvote, and what triggered a moderator to delete it [1].
Clearly, either some kind of misunderstanding, [and/]or, they're complicit in the crime and favouring the conflation that serves children and underage teenagers to them, and wanting to challenge the threat to their Lolita express embedded in this conflationary cultural trope of hate [because this practice is worse than it is in law and statutes ~ which even that needs mending].
Otherwise, what's the thinking behind downvoting and deleting a post that calls for human rights and protecting children?
I failed to get any cogent argument that appeared outside these two options, misunderstanding and/or plausible complicity.
Which would not surprise, since such deviancy would be attracted to such articles, and therein no surprise that the reply tackling the issue in a manner that may actually lead to protecting children gets attacked.
Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding born of hot heads.
*shrug*
I remain open to other possibilities, and very much welcome suggestions or explanations of what else it could be. Would love to know what, if anything, was really wrong with what I said [in substance or style], or even just what was perceived as wrong, beyond all the completely inverting the point of it, like happened in most replies.
Was it removed because it was perceived as prejudice against paedophiles, and that was perceived, by the mod, as in breach of Rule 4?
I thought the point of my post was to protect children.
Curious how some of the replies to my reply blatantly and repeatedly break Rule 5
, yet they remain.
But then, beneath the rules here, it does also say:
Would be good if mods offered reasons why. Otherwise, how are we to know? Without reason offered, to those who don't know why, it appears arbitrary, and that has several negative effects on the communication atmosphere.
I do hope I figure out what it was. I do hope it's not the vilest of answers to the situation (~ as hypothesised as a possibility: the complicity gang, attacking a threat to their supply (~ unfortunately, as it would most appear to be, in absence of reason). I'm going to be thinking about this for a while. ... How rife is the problem? Is that why it's not being mended? The entire system captured by the complicit? Or just too daunting a conceptual leap, to face the horror, that we're all complicit, by our hate, by our love, in handing our children over to the worst, increasing the value of our children to them... it's not pleasant. Don't kill the messenger ffs, or it'll keep happening. This is no time for head-in-the-sand.
[1:(annoyingly disallowing subsequent readers to make up their own mind, lending spurious weight behind all the replies that completely misunderstood/misrepresented it, cherry-picking, quoting out of context, strawmanning, etc)]
::: spoiler was it how it was worded? too challenging?
Too many words. People aren't reading it and just assume you're defending paedophiles. The same reason people are downvoting me as soon as they see "age of consent" and not reading the rest.
I have three news communities. Almost every active comment section has someone who argues based on the headline and nothing else. Some folks don't like to read.
:/ yep.
My instinct is to rip their[1] throats out.
But that's part of the problem that has them hide all the more, preventing remedy, turning them more and more malignant, feeding traffickers and blackmailers.
[1: The pedos. ... Not those who don't read. Oops. Important clarification. LOL.]
Don't want to get modded for threatening violence when ten people are telling you off and calling you a paedo.
I agree, getting rid of paedophiles means either killing or treating them. Since the death penalty is a massive human rights abuse, guess we gotta treat them.
I'm an avowed pacifist, with an ongoing oath of non-violence.
That's merely an instinct, that I'm aware of.
There's always a better way (than violence).
It's good to be aware. Both of this in myself, and how it's used societally.
Since it's recognised as a mental illness, one would think that would make it easy to have treatment be the remedy. But our love of our children, of course, has us easily reflex hatefully at those who abuse our children. And this in turn gets used as a political football, and raises the value of our children to traffickers, blackmailers, and of course, with the forbidden-fruit reverse psychology and thrill of it, child-rapists.
It gets even more difficult, beyond just prohibition not preventing (and making the good things bad and the bad things worse), in that there are dangerous precedent potentials being set in the treatment avenue, akin to the whole conversion therapy and other behaviourist (mis)treatments. Two wrongs. One may easily argue that this is by far the lesser wrong; the lesser evil, and the greater good, but it's the camel's nose back in the tent after decades of trying to get rid of it. Almost like we're being played with a problem reaction solution ploy.
And many of the other treatments more benign to those being treated, lead us back to horrors too dire to consider, for the safety of our children. We cannot supplant these same strategies used for drug use and addiction, to child abuse. There are no safe use spaces viable as solutions for this problem.
Dehumanising them, and killing them, opens the door to abuse, rife with false accusations to eliminate political opponents or any targets of bigotry... and again, increases the value of our children to the most immoral unethical abusers, accelerating that degeneracy, moral depravity, turning it into the darkest of black market industry, that perverts our entire political system, with blackmailers putting in their own kakistarch puppets.
Leaving a false equivalence of hormonal post-pubescent teenagers with youths, children, toddlers, babies, in the minds of formed masses, supplies a great many more (often eager) targets (denied the right to consent), sending them to the black market, to the worst, where they're groomed, and their johns get blackmailed, and we're back in this dangerous situation all the worse, and all our children are not just left more unsafe, but actively made more alluring targets to this abuse industry.
There are no easy answers that are good.
My original point remains loud to me...
A mesophile is an organism, often a microorganism, that thrives in moderate temperatures, typically between 20°C and 45°C (68°F to 113°F), with an optimum growth temperature around 37°C (98.6°F). These organisms are commonly found in environments like cheese, yogurt, and during the fermentation processes in beer and wine making.
I agree with part of your comment, but I think adding a bunch of over nuanced terms that people aren't likely to know, look up, or care to remember isn't going to further anything.
Your example makes little sense though. You're talking about a subsection of microorganisms with specific needs. You won't talk about an extremophile using the word mesophile and then get annoyed that people are confused or assume that they know what you are talking about.
I am like 30% sure that especially this one was thrown in to underline the ridiculousnes of it all. Like, doesn't MAGA folk go to these lengths lately?
But I needed both context and to notice over the board approach and I am still not even sure, dammit xD
Oh fuck off mate, a pedo is a pedo
This is not the time to split hairs