The Pitters' Place

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/teach ... rginity-is

Comments include 'But women do this too WHERE IS UR OUTRAGE FEMNIST LIEBERALS?'

I'm not sure how I feel about the article describing it as "taking her virginity". It seems to have an implication that a teacher having sex with a 16-year-old virgin is somehow different or worse than a teach having sex with a 16-year-old who is sexually active anyway. The status of this girl as virgin or not should have no bearing the story, except it does because society places a creepy value on girls' virginity.

Yah, although I do place some value on that description in that the defence was trying to play her up as some sexually voracious nymphette and it's somewhat counteracted by her virginity (I'm in complete agreement that his behaviour was inexcusable irrespective of her prior sexual activity, but this is proof that the defence and the judge are even more full o' shit).

But I think that's the completely wrong way to counter such a claim. When the defense says "yeah but she was a sexually promiscuous girl", the correct answer is "so?", NOT "no she wasn't, here's proof." By going into proof that the claim is false, it gives undue credence to the claim in the first place; suggesting that it would matter if the claim were true.

It's kind of like when people claim that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexuality is a choice. The correct response isn't to give evidence that it isn't a choice. The correct response is to explain how whether or not it's a choice has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

Truthyfacts, I bow to your truthyfactualness.

Gendo wrote:But I think that's the completely wrong way to counter such a claim. When the defense says "yeah but she was a sexually promiscuous girl", the correct answer is "so?", NOT "no she wasn't, here's proof." By going into proof that the claim is false, it gives undue credence to the claim in the first place; suggesting that it would matter if the claim were true.

While all that may be true, when trying to convince a jury in a court of law playing up the virginity aspect may have been the best course. In my experience, based entirely upon television and movies, lawyers prefer to use psychology rather than a dispassionate deconstruction of the defence's case to win a trial.

This is true; my comment was about the article content; not the lawyer's words though. Even if the article content was quoting the lawyer it still applies.