Texas Teacher Smiles For Mugshot

Comments

2
Is it too cynical to say that she's smiling because she's a white person accused in a southern state?
2
I'm against rape and child sex abuse.

That said, I wish I could have had an improper relationship with her.
3
But aren't public school teachers background checked so this kind of thing can't happen?
Maybe she moonlights as a Youth Pastor.
4
texASS = America's ANUS
5
Smiling in a mugshot is good PR for politicians and/or accused sex criminals alike.
6
Not fair. Delay and Perry were not arrested for sex crimes.
7
Selfie culture; always take a flattering photo. Especially when you know it's going to end up on the Internet. See comments @1 and @3; it's working.
8
Are we sure that she wasn't arrested for teaching science in Texas?
9
Oh fer fuck's sake. So she didn't want to look like some effin' meth head and cracked a smile. This coming from the same media that pounds the important of sex appeal into every man, woman and child from conception to death.

We are a banal and useless society who's demise, well under way, cannot come too soon.
10
My first thought was also that I'd hit that, but...

What is wrong with a 27 year old, conventionally good-looking woman, that she decided that of all the relationships she had on offer, she should pursue one with a minor under her supervision and authority?

Sure, there is a good chance that the guy in question won't feel too damaged by the whole thing, and it may even be a Letourneau-Fualaau love, but we have to draw bright lines for the law somewhere, and "not with your minor students" seems like a solid choice.
11
Is it just me or does it look like she's wearing a mask?
12
@11 Just shiny. She didn't have a chance to powder.
13
Click on the NYPost link if you want to see some more pics of her. Including one in a playboy bunny-ish outfit.

Yowzers!
14
Hmm.

In my younger days, I've had the pleasure of being arrested in King, Pierce, Kitsap and Jefferson counties, as well as in Oregon and Alaska.

At no time was I allowed to smile for my mugshot. They actually yell at you if you try to smile.

Are politicians, celebrities and hot blonde white gals getting preferential treatment in this world?

Say it isn't so!
15
Life is so horrible in Texas, Texans are ecstatic to go to prison, where they can be safely walled off from the rest of that godforsaken shithole.
16
Perhaps its because even if she is found guilty of this crime, odd are long that she will actually spend much, if any time, incarcerated for her actions.

She may, however, get divorced by her husband, unless of course, he found her after school specials to be exciting.
17
#2, it's not technically rape and/or child sex abuse in Texas. In Texas, 17 is considered adulthood. The law she broke is recent and prohibits sex between a teacher and student even if the student is a legal adult. It was passed a decade or so ago to get around the fact that teachers having sex with 17-year olds up until then weren't breaking any laws.
18
.Smiling is how most pedophiles present themselves to their prey. the caption on the photo should simply read ''pedophile '.
19
"Wowzers"? Um...no. She's conventially okay looking. She's certainly not worth messing up your formative years with -- which is absolute what 17 still is: those relationships/encounters you have from 15-20 do a lot to shape you.

And if it's about looks, it is 100% certain there are plenty of equally average or much prettier girls near his age around him that this young man could've had a genuine, healthy relationship or hook up with -- if this 27 year old married adult hadn't interfered with his personal life.
20
@18 She would have to be attracted to children to be a pedophile. A 17yo is NOT a child. What she did was absolutely inappropriate and an abuse of her authoritative/advising role but it does not make her a pedophile.

Unfortunately for her sex offenses tend to be lumped in the same category(legally and coloquially) when often there is some gray.
21
I see they're still doing that sideways-apostrophe eyebrow thing in Texas.
22
@2 Fred2 - it's silly to say and speaks to having an astonishingly short perspective. there isn't any evidence that white defendants have it any better in the south than the rest of the country. In fact, given the general "tough on crime" bent, it's pretty likely that white southern defendants have it significantly worse than their northern and western counterparts.

@10 it seems possible that the victim and the perp are the same emotional age.
23
.@20..Ask a parent of a 17 year old if that's a child.
24
@23 a pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. That means they don't have any physically adult attributes, by all considerations and in fact the legal definition a 17yo is not a child.
25
@23 I am not saying what she did was okay, I am merely saying that her actions were not done with a prepubescent person thusly the definition of pedophile is extreme and incorrect.
26
Oh lord, the NYPost identifies her as an anatomy and physiology teacher! Some jokes write themselves.
27
@ 23 - 17 is above the age of consent in a considerable number of jurisdictions, including Canada, France, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Russia and about 20 states in the U.S.

As evanescenttigress has already explained, "pedophile" concerns those who have sex with prepubescent persons. This woman is an ephebophile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophil…
28
Blechhhhhhh I hate every time these stuuuuupid "well, just for the record, pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children and teens are post-pubescent so..." comments come out of the woodwork.

Goddamn, be intellectually honest. Teenagers are not children, no. However, why can all of us visually identify teenagers? Because they look different from adults-- even from young adults of 20ish. Why are 17yr old boys twinks? Because they look different from adult guys. Their little faces have those youthful cheeks, they lack a lot of power in the world, and their experience of life is still very little.

THAT'S what attracts someone attracted to teens; it's certainly not because the teen looks like a beautiful 21 year old (the adult would simply find a beautiful 21yr old instead if that were the case).

There's an imbalance between an under-18 teen & an adult, and THAT'S what turns someone on who's turned on by & acts on a fetish for teenagers still so young they're in high school.

Be honest.
29
+100 to AddiSea @28. I'd add that teenagers-- including older teens of 16-18-- are emotionally vulnerable in ways different from adults, which is another thing that turns on adults age 25+ who want to be sexual with teens.

As @28 implied, let's be honest, while of course we've all noticed an exceptionally cute high school student, for those who act on it it's a fetishistic attraction, not a genuine attraction to someone as a fellow human being.
30
@28 and @29 we ask people who are 17+ to make some intense life decisions(joining the army, going into lifelong debt, deciding their possible career) so perhaps you should give teenagers more credit. As a teen I absolutely was into men who were too old for me, and while I never acted on it then all my relationships as an adult have been May-December type.

She was in a position that makes her power coercive and he was in a position to refuse and report it(which he may have/probably did). I am am not saying that the relationship is appropriate but that she is not a pedophile. She isn't and that is a fact.
31
@30, nope she's not a pedophile. You're arguing a straw man here.

If you're 25+, being sexual with a 17yr old is not the same thing as being sexual with a fellow 25yr old, a 35yr old, a 55yr old.

Everyone who has some horse in the game to defend acting on sexual desire for high school students? Realize we see you as having a fetish for people more vulnerable than you-- if all you want is beauty that's in the fresh bloom of youth, there are plenty of people long past school who can provide that.

32
@31 obviously you didn't read that I am(and was as a teen) attracted to people who are older than me, so accusing me of having inappropriate relationships with highschoolers is incorrect. This is an arguement of semantics, not ethics, her behavior was inappropriate. Read everything before you make accusations.
33
Yes, @30/@32, we hear you loud and clear, older lovers only.
34
way to be clique-y, you guys. It's a sad day when the facebook comment sections for SL have more discussion and nuance.
35
@19,

Speak for yourself. I'd hit it.
36
@ 28 - At 17, I was living away from home and making all my decisions. And as I stated above, 17 is above the age of consent in an awful lot of countries and U.S. states, which means that lawmakers recognize that 17 year olds are no longer children.

My comment was not stupid.
37
@8: Well played, Sir.
38
Sex with a 17 year old is not pedophilia.
Sex with a 17 year old is not murder.
Sex with a 17 year old is not tax fraud.
Sex with a 17 year old is not treason.
Sex with a 17 year old is not the choice a healthy, mature, ethical adult over, say, age 24 makes in Western society.

All statements are equally true.

Satisfied, pedophilia straw man debaters?

17 year olds should absolutely be exploring and acting on their sexuality in ways that feel fun, comfortable and appropriate to them. It's not their best interest to be doing that with the types of adults who have sex with 17 year olds.
39
It's a wise move.

Smile in your mugshot. Fix your hair. Dress well. Whatever is in your power, do it.

If you are exonerated, or pay your debt and move on, or live it down, or if you're guilty as hell and not sorry, or anything in between, it doesn't matter. There's no outcome where a sullen mugshot is preferable over a smiling mugshot. In any imaginable scenario, the sullen, whipped dog look in most mugshots doesn't help you. If you're going to have a photo of you spread all over, on a million websites, a photo whose copyright you have no control over, do whatever you can to look your best.

And if you are guilty, a mugshot that some on the internet disapprove of is the least of your worries.
40
@2 ugggh... So sick of this white people can get away with anything crap. Also sick of this red state crap about Texas.

Actually there is a widespread problem with how teachers (men and women, all races) who are accused of sex with their students (minors and adults) are treated by the school districts and the law. It's getting national attention right now, and in Texas there is pending legislation to address it- it's actually becoming a pretty big deal.

She's smiling because she's the sort of dumbass girl who takes selfies all the time and knows exactly how to tilt her head or grin for the camera, etc.

And yes, Texas is in the hands of some frighteningly stupid and frighteningly bigoted red politicians. The state itself, let's keep in mind, is a minority-majority state (not a white state) and all the cities are blue. It's also one of the most gerrymandered states in the country, and among the most gerrymandered districts in this gerrymandered states are the districts of Central Texas, including the districts around Travis County, one of the most progressive places in the country, where this bitch and I reside.
41
I'd got out on a limb and say it's fairly normal for people to be attracted to fully developed older teens, at least in a physical way. There really isn't a distinct line between adolescence and adulthood in that way. If we were going to go with brain development, we'd have to raise the age of consent to early-to-mid twenties, and if we were to go to puberty it would be much lower. As for maturity and emotional well-being and capability to handle an adult relationship, we'd have to evaluate both the older teen and the adult involved on a case-by-case level and it would be impossible to establish objective criteria.

So what we do is pick an age, and some of this is arbitrary and it changes with cultural norms. But around the world, we tend to agree that age of consent is between 16 to 19 as that is when people usually finish school and enter the adult world. It's true that there are 15 year olds who are fully mature and capable of handling adult relationships. But they are outliers and most are not. It's also true that there are 20 year olds who are emotionally and physically immature who cannot handle adult relationships and people take advantage of them. But they are also outliers. Therefore, for the good of society, we come up with a legal age that we hope will protect the most people while not restricting the most people. It's not perfect, but I don't think there is any sane person who cares at all about the good of society and the welfare of teens in general who would say that age of consent laws are a bad idea. The people who make those claims are usually frighteningly selfish. If you have a thing for young looking people, you can find an 18 or 19 year old to date. There is no need to break the law and date a 16 or 17 year old. And when people do, it's usually because there is some reason they feel they have better luck with young people with less experience and less power to advocate for themselves, and those are usually very ugly reasons. A grown ass woman with a career and an income and a life of her own who wants to have relationships with her 17 year old students is probably too screwed up to have a relationship with a peer- there is something about the attention, the drama, the vulnerability, the risk or the power that she is enjoying and she hasn't figured out how to get those kicks elsewhere legally and ethically, so she's doing this. Fuck her. And while I'm enough of a pedant that I do understand the distinction between people who want to fuck children and people who want to fuck older teens (yes, of course we all understand that difference) it's still foolish, selfish, illegal and usually unethical.
42
@38

Yes Danny, exactly. It's really weird how many people are popping up everywhere to make those points as if we were all confused about the difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old.

Though to be fair, once you get older and spend time around teenagers as their parents, they do start to really seem like babies. It disgusts me to think about a teacher like this having sex with her teenage student in nearly the same physical revulsion way that pedophilia and incest disgusts me. Usually, they are so immature- just totally naive and foolish and incapable of seeing themselves that way. I don't see how that is attractive at all, even if they are physically attractive young adults.
43
EmmaLiz @ 42 - "It's really weird how many people are popping up everywhere to make those points as if we were all confused about the difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old"

Actually, what's weird is the fact that so many people seem to be confused (read comment 23, for instance) and essentially assert that a 17 year old is in no way better equipped to face the adult world than a 7 year old.

As far as I'm concerned, that's an insult to most 17 year olds.
44
Hi Ricardo: what you seem incapable of agreeing to is the fact that no one is saying 17yr olds shouldn't be have sex. Go re-read @38.

We're saying that YOU, at whatever adult age you are, should not be having sex with 17yr olds.

But I think we both know you know that's what we're saying-- and that's why you refuse to accept it.
45
@ 44 - I have read @38. Unfortunately, I do find that a lot of people try to infantilize teenagers, which I think is doing everyone a disservice.

You might not want to believe this, but I've never had sex with a minor. Not even when I was one myself. But of course, to your little, twisted brain, the mere fact that anyone would argue that teenagers aren't children leads you to think that they want to have sex with teenagers. That says a lot more about you than about me.

Now please crawl back to the slimy hole you came out of, you piece of shit.
46

Any objection, no matter how limited in scope, to age of consent laws, gets the same response.
"You just want fuck children."

I figure this is projection from people who actually want to fuck children.

See what I did there? Is that better than arguing the actual point?
47
No. The point is that age of consent is arbitrary enough. It's between 16-19 most places. It's 17 to 18 in the US. As there is a need for age of consent laws and there is not an objective quantifiable standard that would work for everyone, it's a pretty good idea to match age of consent with age that you finish high school. If the age of consent were 21, I could see why there would be a great need to change it. But to argue that it should be lowered from 18 to 17 just seems really bizarre. I mean, for what reason? The only possible answer is that people want to fuck 17 year olds. Fine, perhaps that's natural enough and legal in plenty of places. But if it's not legal where you live, why not just fuck 18 year olds? To make a big deal about it DOES seem odd. If it's so important to you to argue for changing age of consent laws when they are already reasonable, then it does make people wonder about you. I'm not saying this is anyone's interest here. I think people who relieve stress or find distraction by posting on discussion boards just like to be pedantic. But it is true that there are plenty of folks out there that want to get rid of age of consent laws or at least lower them to the point that they can easily and safely fuck high schoolers. Whether or not there are some select few high schoolers who are mature enough to handle or even benefit from such an arrangement is an irrelevant debate. We don't make laws for specific outliers.

48
No one on this thread is saying 17 year olds should not have sex, or that sex is bad for them. We all agree that 17 year olds are old enough to explore sex.

But as @38 put it perfectly, the types of adults who attempt to/actually do have sex with 17 year olds are not good people for 17 year olds to have sex with.

So yes, any adult on this thread who feels a need to keep vigorously arguing that because it's fine for 17 year olds to have sex it's also fine for adults in their late 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s to have sex with 17 year olds is.... wrong.
49
Matt @ 48 - Is there any adult on this thread who is vigorously arguing that?

Perhaps you've misread the comments.
50
Howdy y'all.

Can we just agree, the reason "pedophile" is probably inappropriate here is because pedophilia is centered around sexual relationships with people who are plainly neither physically or emotionally prepared to have a sexual relationship.

AT ALL

WITH ANYONE.

If my 11 year old is having sex, it doesn't matter if their partner is also 11.

If we contend that this 17 year old boy should in fact have the right to their own sexual relationships, then fucking his 27 year old teacher is more or less fine, on its own. If the teacher aggressively manipulated him using her superior wisdom and knowledge of human nature; or pressured him through her formal superiority, then those are problems. But the ages of these people is, on its own, not a problem. In my book.
51
Sport @ 50 - I, for one, agree.

And now, a blast from the not so distant past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M4_Ommf…
52
The sexual violence apologists in this comment thread are all awful. May you all die, painfully.
53
Like honestly fuck you if you think this started when he was 17. She was probably grooming and manipulating him (if not already outright committing statutory rape) since he was 14, when he started high school.
54
@ 53 - Off your meds again?
55
I stopped at comment 42 and gave up after having only heard one comment proposing that emotional connection and actual LOVE could be a major element of these decisions. You people are so shallow. Why is the subject of arguments so focused on sex with and attraction to particular age groups?... And the judgment and the science of physical attraction? ... It's very likely to be irrelevant.