Teachers, Dentists and Sex
This story is disturbing on many different levels. The gist of it is that a 15 year old girl had trumpet lessons with a 26 year old female teacher. They became close. They fell in love. They had sex. There were complaints, a scandal, a court case, and the female teacher has ended up in prison.
The relationship was entirely consensual – indeed, it seems that there is the intention that it will continue once the teacher is freed from prison. The evidence in court was that the 15 year old girl was the one who pushed for the relationship to become sexual.
Regina Naughton, for the prosecution, said: “They began to have feelings which were not expected. Miss Goddard said she didn’t see her as a 15-year-old and they would have to wait until she was 16, or for three years. But flirting and the sending of text messages to each other began. The teenager described them kissing and then sleeping with each other, and it was at that point that the girl said she wanted a sexual relationship.
“The girl was told that if she felt anything was uncomfortable at any time they could stop. But the girl said it felt right,” she added.
There are a number of points to be made here.
First: There was talk in the court case about the “psychological injury” done to the 15 year old. Right – well there’d be a damn sight less psychological injury if people didn’t get so worked up about this kind of thing. It was a consensual relationship. They loved each other. Sure it might have ended badly. Yes, it’s possible the young girl would have ended up getting hurt. But is it really worse than getting shagged behind the bike sheds by some spotty 15 year old oik who doesn’t give a damn about you?
Second: No doubt there’s the thought that a 15 year old cannot properly consent to sex when the object of their lust is their 26 year old teacher. Fine. There’s something to that thought. But consent is never straightforward. There are all kinds of things that might undermine our ability to make a proper judgement about how we really feel – or will feel – about a sexual encounter. Maybe we’re lonely, or we haven’t had sex for a long time, or we feel unloved, or we’re desperate for a meaningful relationship. If people don’t have sex simply because they can’t be sure they won’t regret it in the morning, then not many people are going to be having sex.
Perhaps the idea is we’re morally bound to protect 15 year olds, but not 26 year olds, from the consequences of this kind of uncertainty. Well maybe, but this would have to be argued for, since it is not obvious that a 15 year old is going to be any more harmed by an ill-judged sexual encounter than an older person. Indeed, there are at least some reasons to think that the opposite might be the case.
Third: There’s an obvious point about proportionality in terms of the punishment meted out to the teacher in this case. Okay, so maybe on balance we don’t want teachers shagging pupils. But let’s get a grip here. Not all cases are equal. A predatory male teacher pressurising a young female pupil into sex is one thing; a female teacher having a consensual sexual encounter with a horny 15 year old boy is another; and the situation in this case, where the two protagonists were/are in love with each other, is a third thing. Arguably, only in the first of these cases is the teacher/pupil relationship morally relevant (though this is complex).
Okay, there’s more to be said here, but probably I’ve gone on long enough. Except consider briefly this story.
A dentist whipped off his trousers and paraded in front of his practice nurse wearing nothing but a leopard-print thong.
His less than subtle wooing tactics evidently paid off, because the couple began a passionate relationship involving sexual encounters in the surgery.
But three other nurses were offended by his conduct towards them, and yesterday he was brought before the General Dental Council to answer charges of inappropriate behaviour.
The panel heard that the dentist regularly groped nurses’ bottoms, twanged their knicker elastic and tried to undo their brassieres through their tunics.
The first thing to say is that we have no idea how much of this story is true. But here are some of the things the dentist is purported to have done.
When a new dental nurse, Miss C, joined in 2004 the dentist is alleged to have grabbed her bottom and poked her breasts.
‘When she would be walking up the stairs in front of him he would frequently grab her bottom. He followed her down the corridor and when she was alone, pushed on her breast with one finger and said words to the effect, "Are they real?".’
Miss C brushed off Barton when he approached her after work and asked ‘if she fancied some fun’, the hearing was told.
Another nurse, Miss D, did not like his ’sexual behaviour’.
‘She noticed early on his behaviour was unusual – he would squeeze her sides and stand behind her. He asked her questions about her sex life and whether she had intercourse last night. She became embarrassed and uncomfortable about these conversations. But worse experiences were to come.’
…Barton became bolder and started to touch Miss D’s bottom in the surgery saying: ‘Let’s have a feel.’ She was shocked and unable to say a thing – she was too shocked to speak. The next day he said she should wear a thong. She simply felt unable to go to work so she eventually telephoned in and told the practice nurse what had been going on.’
The dentist stands to lose his licence to practice dentistry, but he is not going to prison any time soon. (And nor should he.) But is it really the case that his behaviour was significantly better than that of Helen Goddard – the trumpet teacher? It doesn’t seem that way to me.
Category: Ethics, Philosophy | Tags: sex 25 comments »
September 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
These two cases are very different and cannot in my opinion be compared. The female teacher was in a position of trust with a child and abused that. She should not be allowed to work with children again.
The randy dentist was sexually harassing his work colleagues. Disregarding the one who consented to sex with him, he should be charged with harassment.
The gender of the people in these stories is irrelevant.
Potentially the teacher could suffer more from the charges made against her as she will be put on a register and it will drastically effect her career. A teacher, by law I believe, is not permitted a sexual relationship with anyone of the age of 18 or under. It has been decided to make this an offence to protect vulnerable young people. I understand this as I work with youngsters, mainly boys and I am aware of the power that teachers and their assistants have. There is more than one good reason why such relationships are inapropriate.
I have also experienced sexual harassment at work and it is not the joke that people think it is. It can be a similiar effect to being stalked and causes untold distress to the abused. In my opinion the person doing the harassment has some kind of blind spot to the feelings of others and would not be suitable to employ when in charge of anyone vulnerable, such as people under 18.
I make no moral distinction between them but this is based on personal experience.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Just read this back and spotted several spelling mistakes …sorry
September 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
In my opinion, the reason that teachers should not have sex with students has nothing to do with age, but with the possibility that teachers will show favoritism towards students (of whatever age) with whom they are involved or with whom they want to become involved. Now, trumpet lessons are generally one to one, not a classroom situation with other students involved, so I don’t see the problem here. As to the age, 15 in this case, I think that the age of consent should be lowered, perhaps to 15, perhaps to 14. For example, I know a now adult woman who at age 14 began a long relationship with an older man, with her consent and that of her liberal parents. The relationship ended, but the woman and the man are still friends, and the man involved is even a friend of the family.
As to the influence that teachers have over students being a factor in producing “consent” in a relationship, there is always something which seduces the other, be it good legs, playing the guitar, dancing well, having read
Heidegger, and I don’t see why being a teacher is illicit and dancing well is not.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Go and read this entry and consider the ramifications:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/partial-listing-of-our-material-on.html
November 27th, 2009 at 11:01 am
[...] With Genuine Affection – Go to JailPoor BunnyMisunderstanding Richard DawkinsTeachers, Dentists and SexAlgonquin Park PhotosSwine Flu logicChurch. Now Think FreeAmusing reviewPoster troubles?Can secular [...]
November 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Sorry, no.
Sixteen-year-olds should not have their full driver’s licence, be able to take out loans, or be able to consent to sex for the same reason: they aren’t responsible enough to make a choice like that. They aren’t responsible enough to understand the responsibility their choice may carry. They aren’t responsible enough to deal with any emotional complications. They aren’t informed enough to know their sexual rights.
Secondly, if an adult (with the exception of a few Romeo and Juliet laws) is having sex with a child, they are INEVITABLE ABUSING THEIR STATUS OF POWER in that relationship. There are no exceptions.
Even if the child says it’s okay. It’s rape.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Yeah, but you’re not making any kind of argument there – you’re just asserting.
The age of consent in Austria is 14; in Bulgaria it’s 14; Denmark – 15; France – 15; Germany – 14; etc, etc.
If you want to make an argument about “responsibility” then you need both an empirical argument and a moral argument. You need to demonstrate (a) that sexually mature teenagers who are not yet 16 are significantly less “responsible” than say an 18 year old; (b) that “responsibility” trumps all other moral considerations (e.g., the right for self-determination).
Your second point about status and power. Well again, it’s just assertion. You need to show that there are “no exceptions”. You can’t just state it, and think that it therefore is the case. That’s not how it works.
Moreover, even if it is true, and of course it will sometimes be true, you need to demonstrate why this is the only relevant moral consideration. That will get very difficult because men (and women) have been using their power and status to get people into bed (regardless of age) for as long as they’ve been going to bed together at all.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
About power in relations between older and young people: if you read the book “Lolita”, by Nabokov, it is definitively Lolita who has power over Humbert, not vice versa. Humbert is used and manipulated by Lolita. It’s not always like that, but it often is. There’s no fool like an old fool, as they say.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Right, and in the example here, the evidence suggests that it was the 15 year old who pushed for the sexual relationship.
That’s why this stuff about “no exceptions” is just… well it’s wrong (sorry Autumn).
November 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Logical argument does not come into this. It is a question of social boundaries. I am wondering if either of you, Jeremy or Amos has daughters. Reasoned arguments go out of the window. The only argument I could make here is that society needs boundaries and this is one of the last clear ones left. Why would you want to argue in favour of a change to the law in this case? Explain the benefits.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Rebecca
Okay, but I could accept that society needs boundaries, but think variously:
a) That the age of consent should be 14, as it is in Germany, not 16;
b) That the details of any particular sexual encounter involving a ‘minor’ matter in terms of assessing the morality of what happened (for example, there just is a moral difference between a 15 year old girl pressuring an 18 year old boy for sex; and a 35 year old male grooming a 14 year old for sex);
c) That although in the situation described here there is moral wrong, it isn’t the kind of wrong the warrants a prison sentence;
d) That “psychological injury” is in part a function of the way in which sex is viewed (in other words, that part of the “damage” to the psyche is precisely caused by the fact that the behaviour involves a violation of social norms and values);
Also, I think your more general point about logical argument not being part of the story leads one onto dangerous ground.
My brother was murdered. I could argue that it’s only a murder victim’s relatives and loved-ones who are properly able to judge the appropriate punishment for murder. And that in assessing such a punishment, logic doesn’t come into it. Then I could argue that it’s clear that all murderers should be hung, drawn and quartered.
The problem is, of course, that this line of argument could end up justifying all kinds of barbarities. Logic, ethics, etc., are important because they join up with our conceptions of justice. And that’s what the argument here is about.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Ok Jeremy, I apologise if I gave the impression that you are socially naive, your experiences clearly suggest otherwise. I think that I tend to put my points forward from an empirical view and not so much philosophical. In that way I probably don’t construct a very good philosophical argument. Unlike yourself, i tend to speak from experience and ignore concepts like ‘morality’, something that I do not have much of a relationship with I am afraid. In fact morality, for me, does not come into it.
I have considered your points on logic and I see what you mean. For example, I would argue that cannabis should be legalised because there is a wealth of evidence that it could benefit society, in terms of law and order, wealth creation and ecological benefits. I suppose if I looked into it I could find arguments to justify the lowering of the age of consent. After all we have contraception and youngsters are more knowledgeable about sex.
I have been thinking about ethics and I suppose this is about protection. When I worked in a hospital all the books on ethics suggested that the patients sense of wellbeing was paramount. This was the basis on which to take any decision.
In this anecdote, the people to be protected are an adult female and a 15 year old female, protected because they are ‘customers’ to use a modern term. The only difference between them is that one is a child and one is an adult. While of course the adult could be very innocent and maybe have a learning difficulty or handicap, the likelihood is that the child is the more impressionable. For this reason we need to consider abuse of the 15 year old to be more detrimental. I think this is based on a judgement of probability.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. i am not good at written stuff, I prefer to discuss face to face.
thank you for reading.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Rebecca
You have nothing to apologise for!
You’re probably right that all other things being equal if an adult and a fifteen year old have a sexual encounter, then the fifteen year old is likely the more vulnerable, will have less power, etc.
The issue then is what follows from this. Part of my worry here is that in very many sexual encounters – including those involving only adults – there will be power inequalities, status inequalities, asymmetrical vulnerability, etc; so the question is – do we want to condemn those encounters? Do we want all sexual encounters to be absolutely reciprocal? If we do, then probably people won’t be having sex at all.
You might want to check out my thread on the Talking Philosophy blog. We’ve been chatting about this issue over there.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1461
November 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I make no judgement about this case (partly because I haven’t read the stuff carefully), but it does show that adult/non-adult sexual encounters can be very different kinds of thing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232149/Sandhurst-soldier-facing-jail-having-sex-girl-13-seduced-him.html
November 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
If that soldier had had sex with a consenting 13 year old girl in either Argentina or Bolivia (assuming that she was already pubescent in the second case), he would not be facing jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America
November 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Yes. 13 years old – I begin to get a little nervous (even with consent, etc). But… if a 13 year old is the sexual aggressor, it’s going to mitigate culpability.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I really think that there is a risk of these arguments reverting to stereotypical thought processes. So often we think of sexual ‘predators’ as being male. Amos talks about a soldier and immediately we think of a male. There seems to be an assumption that sexual abuse is usually conferred to a younger person by a male. Recent news stories are changing this view and people are even more terrified now than ever. To reflect this terror in the general population even stricter laws are being brought in regarding care of the vulnerable. I read recently there is some consideration being given to the idea of men being vetted before a relationship is undertaken. once again the assumption is that men are not to be trusted.
I suppose that what I am saying is that the female teacher is every bit as predatory as the dentist even though the law takes a harder line on her actions.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Rebecca
But if there’s a risk of relying on stereotypes here doesn’t that also apply to the issue of age?
There seems to be an assumption that the predator must be the older person. But that doesn’t seem to me to be a matter that is beyond doubt.
For example, in the case we’re discussing here, even the prosecution accepted that it was the younger girl who pressed for the relationship to become sexual. If that’s the case, it seems a stretch to think that the female teacher is every bit as predatory as the dentist.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I would have to agree that age can evoke stereotypes too. the thing that puzzles me the most is how the teacher was ever employed in the first place. Her vulnerability is clear but I suspect she maybe lacked a certain amount of social intelligence and restraint too. From my perspective though, she is very very young and should be guided by her (older) peers into a different type of occupation. I feel sorry for her more than I want to condemn her although she has to take responsibility for her actions. She is something of a liability I would think to any future employer.
I am beginning to see that ‘predatory’ may not be the right word for this woman and ‘weak’ or ‘fragile’ might be a better word. She has of course let her school down badly and her fellow teachers.
The randy dentist fits more of a common stereotype I think, one that is likely to be excused for his actions.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Okay, but the assumption here is still that there was something wrong about what happened between the girl and the teacher. That isn’t obviously the case. Consider:
1. If it had occurred in Germany, then the girl’s age would not have been an issue;
2. The inequality in the teacher-pupil relationship doesn’t seem to be a factor here, since the girl pushed for the relationship to become sexual;
3. The teacher and the girl are still in love, and they intend to see each other once the teacher is released from jail;
Okay, I realise this stuff has to be balanced against the whole teacher thing (I do think it’s on the whole probably not a good idea for teachers to shag their pupils), but nevertheless it’s not clear that the moral calculus comes out against this relationship.
It seems to me that it’s a lot better that your first sexual experience be with an older person you love, and who loves you, than with some spotty oik, who doesn’t give a damn about you, and who will probably video your sexual encounter on his mobile phone, and show all his mates!
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
An encounter with a spotty oik is something easily forgotten as it is likely to be over in a very short time. Being filmed on a mobile is almost normal these days!You are almost suggesting that this woman is damaging the girl’s future relationships irrevocably by setting her up for disappointment with men.
I personally had a relationship with a teacher when I was 16 and he was 27. He pushed for the relationship and I succumbed. That is how I look at it. It wasn’t bad but it stunted my development at that stage as I missed out on meeting other young immature people and had to make do with his older friends and outlook on the world. I was susceptable to this as I was naive and inexperienced. I believe what he did was wrong although he is agood person generally. It is a pity I did not meet him later in life and we could have had a more equal relationship, although we are now internet pals years later. Perhaps this has coloured my views on this type of relationship.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Hey Rebecca
Well again, I’d say that this is to assume that teacher is active and the pupil passive. My suggestion is that this is not obviously the case here, and that it isn’t always the case, generally speaking.
The situation you describe is different, I think. I would also say that your teacher behaved immorally. But I think there’s more to be said about it:
a) Do you think he deserved to go to prison (because under current UK laws he would – assuming he was convicted, etc)?
b) Do you think that his behaviour was worse than say a man who uses a woman’s fear of being alone in order to elicit sexual favours from her (which I’d think was fairly common amongst adults)?
My general point isn’t that people behave well when they have relationships with much younger people (though in the particular case of the female teacher and her young girl lover, I’m not inclined to think there’s too much that is wrong). It is rather that they don’t necessarily behave any less well than other people involved in different kinds of sexual encounters, with different dynamics, etc.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
In reply to your question, no I do not think prison is appropriate at all! I do think that people abuse eachother’s trust in so many ways, we are probably all guilty here. Human beings do use their power to get what they want, including sexually. The question seems to be whether some relationships are more of a breach of trust than others. A parent of a 15 year old in this country is responsible for their child’s welfare and therefore has a huge amount of power over their son or daughter, financially, emotionally and intellectually. When handing over this responsibility to a teacher, who becomes ‘in loco parentis’ the parents will expect certain standards of behaviour to be maintained. The teacher has breached this trust, breached the trust of the parents. Looked at this way the crime has been committed against the parents/carers. The girl, presumably will have a view on this matter when she is older that might be very different to the one she holds now. Apart from that I don’t think we can condemn either the teacher or the girl morally. We can only guess at the damage done.
I think, in essence I agree with you Jeremy.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Yes, I agree about the ‘in loco parentis’ point: that certainly applies if the child is 15 in the UK.
In that sense, I agree that the teacher has behaved badly.
Cool that we agree about most of the other stuff!
December 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Jeremy is this thread dead?