well what ev. i donno anth,bout this for the minute.

Putting in my two cents without reading any posts before me, so i apologize if this is a repeat.

The teacher student relationship (non sexual) Is, by nature, a relationship with an imbalance of power. Even without the added complications of romance, there are some teachers who abuse this power.

I am someone who feels that equality in relationships is very, VERY important. As such, anything romantic or sexual that stems from a teacher student situation makes me uncomfortable. There are so many ways in which such a relationship could become unhealthy, which is why i think it is so very frowned upon. It is also one of the few social taboos i agree with.

HOWEVER, as has always been my stance with all couples just this side of acceptable, if two people can work out a healthy, caring, mutual beneficial relationship from a teacher student circumstance, i do not judge. Live and let live, y'all

What do you define as an equal relationship? And how do you determine whether or not a relationship is indeed equal? Also, I am curious to know your stance on why equality in a relationship is very, VERY important. If you could please list your reasons on why you think so, I would greatly appreciate the insight. Thanks in advance ^^.

Fun fact: where I am, Age of consent is 16, and 14 and up has a 4 year buffer period with whom they can have sex. I live in a very liberal state ^_^

You know, it's funny. I always say that Equal relationships are important to me, but i never thought about what equal MEANS. I apologize in advance for any inarticulateness

If too partner's are to be considered equal... Well first of all there needs to be a balence of power. Power can mean many things; emotional and financial and the like. Pretty much, each partner can have equal power in decision making, although from time to time one may defer to another's expertise.

Emotional power though... That is one of the most important. If a partnership loves each other equally, or near equally, there is only so much of an emotional foothold one can have over the other. An imbalence in emotional power can lead to very unhealthy relationships. I'm sure we've seen the couples when Person A over heals for Person B, and Person B very little. Person B often manipulates or takes advantage of Person A, both because person A is so enthralled and because since Person B is not so invested, they don't feel as responsible for person A's mental health.

Financial power doesn't necessarily mean who makes more money (although it can, if the person who makes the most money establishes that they are in control of the money) but whether who has a say in the spending of the money. If the couple has equal say in how money is to be delt with, that is a facet of equality. Note that if one of the partnership throws his/her hands in the air and says "I suck with money, you take care of it," That would, to me. be a form of equality because that person made their own choice into how they money would be dealt with.

Balence of power (equality) is so very important to me in a relationship because it prevents one partner from being taken advantage of. Imbalence can lead one partner to feel bitter and resentful, or downtrodden and depressed, or in severe cases lead to abuse. A partner that views him or herself as an equal (not better, not worse) to their loved one, is both less likely to take advantage, and less likely to let themselves be taken advantage of.

If they want to date wait until after the younger person graduates. It's really not that hard. The teacher/ student relationship is first and foremost. It needs to be practiced and kept strict to a point. When it comes to dating people will accuse of favoritism and even rape. So, why not just cover your ass and make sure all the proper steps are taken.

The seeds of societal conformity are strong with you. That is the mark of a successful institution of society. The fact that it can get the masses to conform to certain ideas without ever having to think of why they actually do agree with what society says. I question everything, I find the motives behind the actions. I find much more satisfaction in the "why" rather than the action itself.

See, I kind of have a problem with this. You are focusing your opinion on equality between two people on what is considered a perfectly normal couple in an American Society. In order for a perfect relationship to come about, it must be perfectly balanced, but balanced power should not be the main focal point. Nor is perfectly balanced in any way synonymous with perfectly equal.

Before I delve too much into the emotional aspect, I will have you know that love is again a socially constructed definition that applies wherever society wishes it to apply. Love is not a single emotion, and is only a nice way of saying what it really is. All love, under my own personal observation, has to do with protection and possession and sharing those traits with something else in different degrees. This can range from wanting to protect a collection to desiring to possess and protect your monogamous mate. Once you remove the ambiguous word called love from the assessment of a relationship you come across only the different varying degrees of protection and possession. Trust and Loyalty are just kind ways to describe the possession aspect since possession in and of itself is usually cast in a negative light when it is looked at by the whole of society. Protection would be described by the cliche line "I would die for you", and other promising comments similar to that. One who wants to protect, does not want to be protected as much. One who wants to possess, does not want to be possessed themselves. One who both protects and possesses, does not want to be protected or possessed. Likewise, one who does not want to possess or protect, wants to be possessed and/or protected. There are of course exceptions, where both want to be protected and possessed on an equal level, but they usually have a leaning towards domineering towards one or the other. The only unhealthy relationships that occur, are the ones that are in denial of what part of the "love" aspect they want to be a part of. In BDSM, they call this either Doms in denial, or submissives in denial. Where, the Dom thinks they are a Dom, but in actuality they actually fit the role of submissive better. In the submissive's case, they think they want to be dominated, but in actuality would fit the role of dominating better. Dom represents Protection aspect, subs represent Possession aspect. This works the same way in the Vanilla world. A person thinks they want something in a relationship, but in actuality they don't know for themselves what they really want. A perfect relationship can only happen once you have fully found out what you are and what you want your role to be, that way you can look for someone(s) to fulfill the other role. Of course, you have to be lucky enough to find a person that is also completely aware of what they want their role in life to be as well. If not, it still may end, just on their terms rather than yours.

That makes perfect sense, though it does not equate with the equality I thought you were talking about, so I am glad you clarified. As some people may not be good with money at all and therefore leave all "power" in the hands of one more responsible to benefit both of them. This is not a display of equal power as one would normally understand it to be.

Taking advantage of others is what humans do every minute of their life. We just sugar coat it with nice words most of the time. "Thank you for your business," "thank you for the convenience you sold to me". Consumer and Manufacturer both manipulate the other to benefit themselves in the best way that they can.
The only thing that really creates discord in relationships is the inability of the people involved to be honest and open about themselves. Everyone wants to believe they fit some certain image that has been drilled in their head, without realizing that what they are is unique and one-of-a-kind. It is not an imbalance of power that creates chaos within a relationship, it is ignorance of self-identity and seeking the wrong partner for yourself based off the false image you presume yourself to be which creates a rocky relationship.

I am... conformist? I've never been described that way before. Not that I take offense, its just.... Odd.

I'm unsure which part of believing that if people are in a romantic partnership, both partners should be on equal levels when it comes to control over their lives as individuals and their lives together as a couple. I think my view on it is less american conformist indoctrination and more comming from my place as a woman and looking at the past a present of inequality when it comes to my gender.

For far too long women have been regarded as inferior, whether by culture or religion. From ancient Greece when women were glorified babymakers locked in dark rooms, fed little, and made to produce children, to times when women could not get a divorce, and if they could they lost their homes, money, children, and had no means of supporting themselves. Or in the times of Jane Austen when a mother and her daughters could lose their homes and livelihood because thier husband or father died, and had to live on the generosity (or lack thereof) of thier relatives (Sense and Sensibility, anyone?) Or even just in America's young history, when women could not vote, could not get good jobs, could not go to college. A mentor of mine wanted to be a vet. When she was in college her academic adviser told her not to bother, that vet schools would never accept a woman because they assumed a woman would get married, have babies, and never use their education. This woman never got married, nor did she have any children, and she is still very much alive today.

Even today the idea of women being equal to men is not universal in our oh so progressive country of the USA. Women still, on average, get paid less than men. Double standards run rampant and still many woman are judged not by what is in there heads but their bra size.

So yes, absolutely equality in a relationship is important to me, as a women, when women have been so unequal for so long. My view on the importance of equality is less on what i believe the dynamic of the relationship itself should be, and more on the people in the relationship as individuals who happen to be in a relationship. No one should feel inferior or superior to thier partner, for reasons i have states above.

A bold statement, my friend! One that would get very many people's backs up indeed.

Now, I remember you stating in a previous thread that you are borderline psychopath and don't have much emotion. (this is not intended as an insult, mind! I'm bringing it up only for the benefit of my argument). Love is, by definition, an emotion. It is strong, visceral, and illogical by nature. The way you see it is very analytical, and a judgement of people's actions in response to this fluid concept of "love". But is it not possible, that being unable to feel emotions to the depths that many people do (myself included; I am an EXTREMELY emotional person) and by looking at it so analytically, you may be missing a piece of what love is? Once again i maintain that this is not a dig, only an observation and a challenge to your statement. But let us go ahead and assume that i believe your analysis on love is true (which i would like to reiterate i do not), and move on.

I would like to note that i view sexual equality and relationship equality as very different and separate things. By relationship i mean a couple's overall dynamic in the day to day life that they live, from working, to interacting with each other and friends, taking care of the household, raising children, if any, ect. In a relationship i want to be equal. In bed I want to be dominated. These are very separate things to me.

Once again operating under the assumption that all human interraction is taking advantage of each other (which, once again, is not my view at all), there are levels of taking advantage that are acceptable and levels that are not. Asking your spouse to TIVO the game is acceptable. Beating your spouse for whatever reason is not. Asking your spouse to do the dishes is acceptable. Putting down, screaming, yelling, emotional warfare, is not acceptable. Such abuse, I have found, comes from power imbalance and the view of the couple that they are unequal. A man does not beat his wife if he view her as an equal, a woman does not let herself be beaten if she views herself as an equal.

The disagreement I have with this statement is that that is the only factor of discord. OF course, one could argue that inequality in relationships and the problems that come about are caused not by actual inequality, but perceived inequality, which would indeed be a problem of not being honest and open about oneself.

My comment about conformity was not meant to call you a conformist, simply to show that you engage in some conformist actions by saying that "being equal is the most important thing in a relationship," but then admitting later that you have never really thought about what "equal" really meant to you. You conformed to the word "equal" since it holds the majority of liberal power in this country and is overstated wayyy too much that you didn't even think about what you were representing when you stated what you believed. That is what a conformist does with everything, however, I have only witnessed you do it with one thing, so will not call you an outright conformist ;)

So, now you are only comparing equality in perfect balance on the grounds that it is a heterosexual relationship? Where, in ages past and present, a man was always superior to the female in almost any social setting? That is not a good stance to take if you are indeed vouching for equality. Since equality would also infer homosexuality as well as other sexualities.

As much as I enjoyed the rant about women rights, I regret to inform you that this brings the post off topic and I will not respond to it accordingly. The feminism debate would love to have you there regarding this particular comment though ;) Might wanna check it out ^^. I will need to remind you that gender roles and judgments are not just limited to your gender either. I can list several different things where a woman is more better off than a man.

But those feelings are never truly admitted to the other. They are only inferred by outsiders that do not share the same views. What if a woman or man wants to be completely controlled. What if getting beaten makes them happy? I grant you this is not the case for all, but you cannot generally speculate that just because certain actions take place in a relationship that this makes it unhealthy. That is far from the truth. I know many masochistic people who love to be whipped, scorned, humiliated, and at the same time loved. You may argue there is something wrong with them, but who are you to really say that? Just because their lifestyle and preferences differ from what "normal" society accepts, does not make it wrong. It is just a biased perception where society feels the need to interfere since they think they know better than the individual in question.

I smiled at that statement, as you can probably tell, I am not afraid of getting "people's backs up" about things. If they believe something, they better be able to defend it. Why believe something, if you cannot defend what you believe. It becomes pointless. I will see how your defenses play out, and we'll find out the outcome.

A personal attack that is legitimate, nicely done. However, it simply will not be very effective, as you will see further in this post.

Love has had a myriad of ambiguous meanings in ages past and even now. It can range from the love of an object, to love of a family member, to love of mate, to the love of a pet, to love of a plant, to the love of something not even materialistic such as an idea. You cannot define love by just calling it an emotion. In certain cases it can certainly represent the cliche emotion you describe, in others it does not fit that definition. You would not love a tree as you love your mate. There are differing levels of possession and protection that define the different variations of love. Depending on the differing levels of possession and protection that are incorporated into the specifications of the ambiguous meaning of "love", you will get different actions resulting from it. Anything from spilling your thoughts into a diary to sharing reproductive liquids with a mate.

To answer your question though, it is quite possible that I am lacking of the necessary emotional capability in order to experience full fledged "love" for myself as you do. However, even if I was able to experience it at the level that you were (if I am truly incapable, as my borderline rests with the fact that I can only be capable of emotion to those I am closest to. The rest of the people just simply don't matter and I have no true moral compass (logic of society lifestyle and acceptance being the only thing that prevents me from acting out of the norm)), I still do not think I would define it any other way. In fact, when I ask people to define love for me I get the examples I produced. When I ask people how I would know if I love someone, here are some of the responses I get.

"Do you see yourself remaining loyal to this person?"
"Would you die for the person if you knew it would save them?"
"Does the person make you happy?" (Happy being another ambiguous term)

There are several other examples, but I will not list them for now. My point being, is that no one I have met or talked to can give me a clear concise definition of what love really is. They can give me questions and assess my love that way. But they cannot define love. I do define love. I define it as a combination of possessive and protective traits that are shared between the ones incorporating the feeling of love together. All examples I gave I can break down into possessive and protective counterparts. I highly doubt you can provide one example of love that contradicts what I claim. In either case, as a counterattack on your claim that I am wrong, the burden of proof is on you, to claim that love is a definable emotion that is not distinguished by the levels of possessive and protective traits combined.

I agree that sexual equality and relationship equality are quite different, however they both incorporate roles that are similar. In terms you may understand due to your previous statement about woman inequality:

"The Working Man is the Dom"
"The Housewife is the sub"

Just because sex and relationship equalities are different does not mean that they don't work off the same aspects of D/s. Everything is based off that. There is a "superior" and there is an "inferior." It is just impossible to determine which is which. I used the BDSM lifestyle as an example to show that perfect equality is not only an incorrect assumption, but it is also a very extreme rarity in relationships. If everything had perfect equality, life would be a bore, everyone would die from stagnant lifestyles, and there would be no requirement to bring a balance into anything. If everyone is perfectly "equal, as you choose to use the term, there would be no compromising or anything occurring that builds the relationship in the first place. Like I also stated above, perfect equality is not synonymous with perfect balance. Perfect balance is required for a perfect relationship. The good balances out the bad and makes it a neutral relationship. The smart balances out the stupid. So on and so forth. Yin Yang concept. You are saying equality is based on a factor that everyone has positive results all the time. Perfect Balance insinuates that the "good" is "equal" to the "bad." If there is not a perfect, or at least decent balance of good and bad in a relationship it will most likely fail. A good/good relationship fails just as a bad/bad relationship fails, and most likely a neutral/neutral relationship fails, but I have never witnessed one of those so I can't be entirely sure, which is why I call it a rarity.



Who actually should decide what levels are intolerable and which ones aren't? The ones who are involved in the interaction, or third party societal bystanders looking in and misunderstanding what is really going on? I understand that there are many people out there who are not comfortable with who they are and therefore they become walking doormats, but this is only because, as I mentioned before, they do not know who they truly are or what they truly want. So instead of trying to please themselves, which is a complete impossibility at this point, they please others instead since doing nice things provides a type of happiness/bliss within the mind. However, this has no relevance to whether or not the inequality is occurring or not. The relationship fails because the doormat finally realizes what they want in life (self awareness/identity) and they leave the situation that now makes them consciously unhappy. The equality part was just a side effect of being a doormat in the first place.


I don't see any disagreement for this statement currently. I look forward to your reply :)

fair enough, I see where you went with that. Like i said, i was not offended, just surprised. Now that I see your reasoning i am less surprised.


Oh no i did not mean to imply that at all! Sorry if i went on a tangent and wasn't clear. I only meant that equality resonates so much with me personally because of the history of women being downtrodden. My views on the importance of equality and so on most certainly apply to homosexual couples. As a straight female i inadvertently focused on hetero couples with my above rant and that is my own failing for which i apologize.


fair enough and duly noted ^_^


For this i reference back to my money example, when a person deferred control of money to his or her spouse by choice. IF there did exist such a couple with a masochistic partner that enjoyed receiving physical violence in a non-sexual manner, and the partnership was loving, caring, and healthy, then yes, that to me would be a form of equality. A mentally healthy, self-aware person choosing submission, and being free to make such choices, would be an equal partner (in this one, very narrow definition of the relationship). However this, to me, would be a unicorn of relationships. Often (not ALWAYS, but often) A masochistic person feels that, for whatever reason, they need to be punshed, and seeks punishment. Is this person healthy and self aware? I would not think so. There is a reason that relationships in which a spouse is beaten or abused are viewed as unhealthy.


I really, truly did not mean it as an attack. I brought it up simply because i felt it was relevant to the discussion.



I do not disagree that your definition of love is accurate, only that it is an oversimplification of something that is very very complex indeed. As with most oversimplifications, it is correct to a point, but fails to reflect the full complexities of the whole issue.

I admit to liking your description of "balance" much more than my fumbling description of equality. I see what you mean by balance being different from equality. However, I still maintain that equality is important. Smart balancing out stupid is a nice idea, however i could not stand to be in a relationship with someone who was not an intellectual equal. Too much more intelligent, and i would feel and act more inferior. To much more unintelligent, and I would be impatient and mentally unsatisfied. Neither scenario would be fair to either me or my hypothetical partner, and the relationship itself would be unfulfilling.

Who decides is always a sticky question in any issue. Ideally, yes, it would be the couple involved. But what if the doormat does not realize what they want in life and spends the rest of their life downtrodden and abused and never leaves their domineering spouse. Would you say that that relationship is a success?

Yes, sometimes third parties don't know what the fuck they're talking about in regards to a relationship. I've been on the receiving end of that. And sometimes they can see truths that the couple, enmeshed in emotions and drama and whatnot are blind to. I've been on the receiving end of that one as well.
[/QUOTE]

And that reason is because of their lack of self-identity, not the lack of equality. Lack of equality is only caused because of the lack of self-identity they possess. It is only a side effect of the real problem.

I was not upset, it was an attack, but a legitimate one that was indeed relevant to the conversation. I was commending you :P

Reflect the complexities for me that I failed to address with my simple definition then please.

So it would not work for you. However, smart "special education teachers" love their mentally impaired students. A loyal "smart wife" will stick by their "stupid husband" when the husband gets in an accident and has some kind of brain damage or paralysis. There are many examples that I can give you that show that smart people are attracted to stupid people. The reasons why this is can be many, ranging from "wanting to feel good for defending a less capable person," to "feeling it is the morally right thing to do." If smart people did not "love" stupider people, then there wouldn't be all these programs trying to work with stupid people to make the most of their life. the smart people would just let them die instead since they take up resources, time, among many other things.

I would say it is unsuccessful only because of the lack of self identity. Like I mentioned before, equality has nothing to do with it. It is just one of the many symptoms of having a lack of self identity.

I never argued that equality MADE a successful relationship, only that it was important. Admittedly I probably implied it, but that was unintentional and i apologize. That equality or lack thereof is caused by deeper issues does not mean that equality or inequality is unimportant. Quite the contrary, equality is an indicator (not the ONLY one of course) of the success of a relationship. If both couples have a good amount of self-identity, their relationship will have more equality because one wont be a doormat letting their partner use and abuse them.



It's like if you took a person and hypothetically broke them down and categorized and defined all of their organs, all of the intricacies of how the human body worked, the firing of nerve impulses in the brain, everything, and then looked at me and said this is everything that makes up this person, and makes them who they are. To which I would reply yes, but not exactly.

At the most basic and literal, humans are the sum of their parts. But we are more than that. We are out memories, our feelings, experiences thoughts and emotions. Personality, what makes humans individuals, is not even fully understood. Our thoughts and emotions do not follow set logical patterns. We cannot track the electrical impulses in our brands, record them, and set definitions to them that say This Is Who We Are.

Love is indeed a human invention. It comes from humans (maybe animals, but that is another debate altogether). Possession and protection are loves organs and impulses, but love itself does not follow patterns. I do indeed feel possessiveness and protectiveness towards those I love. I am a person very in touch with my emotions, I know what I am feeling when I am being possessive only, I know what I am feeling when I am being protective only. When I love, i feel both those things, but I also feel something more, that transcends both of those things into something wholly different. People are more than the sum of their parts, and emotions are more than the sum of the actions of the people expressing them. Perhaps the reason you have not had a satisfactory answer of what love is to contradict your own is not because we are trying to over complicate a very simple and base thing, but that our language does not have the words to adequately describe the complex and often overwhelming emotions that we feel.


I was using the one example to express a wide and overarching theme of maybe balance not being everything. Then again, equality is not everything, and i see where you are going with that sentiment.

Equality in some things and balance in others is important. For some people, they may need intelectual equality, and someone who is calm to balance out passion, for example. But there must be equality in a relationship because there must be give and take. An emotionally unstable individual taking emotional support from their stable partner without giving back support is recipe for disaster, for example (I've seen this one happen. it did not end well)

The only possible way it could be considered important is to treat it as a visible symptom to the real problem, which is the lack of self-identity. Much like how a cold is diagnosed. There are symptoms, (runny nose, sneezing, coughing, sore throat, fatigue.) All of these are important. Equality is like a runny nose. It is one of the many symptoms that is caused by lack of self-identity. When someone gets a runny nose, they wipe it or blow it. That temporarily fixes the problem but does not get rid of the source and is therefore irrelevant and unimportant. All wiping your nose does is return the comfort to you. All restoring equality does is return the temporary comfort to you. However, restoring equality, like wiping a runny nose, is completely irrelevant and equally unimportant to the healthiness of the relationship. It may fix the relationship status temporarily, but unless the actual issue (lack of self-identity) that causes the symptom of lack of equality is taken care of, either the symptom (lack of equality) will return, or other symptoms will still occur keeping the relationship unhealthy and not stable.

Not exactly?

Memory, Feelings, Experiences, Thoughts, and Emotions are all found in the brain and can be measured by observing the electrical and chemical currents that flow through the brain. If memory was more than the human body, then amnesia would not exist. If feelings were more than the body, then sociopaths/psychopaths would not exist. Experiences are simply the feedback mechanisms on which your brain interprets what it wishes to. Experiences themselves have nothing to do with what a human is, only the interpretation and interaction with the experience from the brain is what helps make the human. Again, this is located in the brain. Thoughts, also obviously, come from the brain. Emotions, again, if they were outside of the human body, psychopaths/sociopaths would not exist.

If possession and protection did not have negative values associated through society the word love would not be needed to express the human's feelings. I change my definition just a little bit to make it more accurate. Love can be defined as the combination of only the positive qualities associated with the sharing of protective and possessive traits within a defined relationship, not necessarily just a romantic relationship either.

Again, refer to my symptom versus cause and temporary solution versus permanent cure.

Equality as a symptom is important. It is an indicator in this instance, and indicators are important. If there's a red light flashing telling you something is going to blow up or overheat, of course your not going to just turn off the light; its the indicator and solves nothing. You go down and you make sure whatever is threatening to blow up doesn't. But the indicator is EXTREMELY important in knowing that there is a problem in the first place.

And I am not even convinced that inequality is NOT an issue. Take the example of a student/teacher relationship that sparked this whole debate. The student/teacher relationship is by nature unequal. A student who does possess self-identity may have trust and faith in a mentor-figure. As a mentor-figure, that student may put more faith in judgement in the teacher than themselves, conciously or unconciously, because a teacher is one who is supposed to be "wiser" and "know better". The teacher may do one of two things; encourage the student's individuality and ability to think for themselves, even in the presence of a romanic relationship, or use and abuse that trust and faith to manipulate and dominate the student. Thus a student that in more equal circumstances would be self-aware enough to have a healthy relationship, has now had the self-awareness depleted and consumed by the stronger partner, and left them open to abuse. In this instance I would say that the lack of equality could very well be a root cause and not just a "runny nose"


Yes, not exactly

Thoughts, emotion, memories can all be measured to a certain extent, but not to the detail and the accuracy that you imply. Breaking down human beings in that way is once again accurate, but an oversimplification and not the whole story. If all we were were electronic impulses and chemical currents, we would be like machines. We would react in the same ways in circumstances and what we would understand as the logical answer and choice would be the route we would take, which is not the case. If all we were were impulses and chemicals, scientists would be able to track such things and predict our actions, which they cannot do. I'm not saying these parts are not of the human body, I'm saying the some of of them transcends what is merely chemicals and electricity. If you damage memory, something intrinsic about the person them self is damaged, not just "oh, I forgot." If psychopaths and sociopaths felt more emotion, they would be intrinsically different people. Yes people can be broken down into different parts and chemicals, but if you add or remove a part, they're not the same person with less ___ or with more ____, they are completely different people, because they are more than the sum of their parts.

for the most part I'm very much against that sort of thing...I guess the exception I can make to it is in college. Because in college, the student IS old enough, and not all college professors are really all that old now a days, so it's not really all THAT weird. And sometimes it doesn't even have to be a professor that a student has for a teacher.

It's when it's middle school or high school students where the line gets crossed for me.the thought of something like that happens is highly disturbing in my opinion. They're still minors which makes it extremely illegal.

Yes, as I mentioned in my previous post, the only reason why equality might be important is because of its ability to help diagnose the real problem through a visual indication. However, that is not how this debate started. It started because you said relationships should work towards obtaining a perfectly equal relationship. That would be the same as telling someone with a cold to wipe or blow their runny nose in order to fix their cold. You should not work for perfect equality, but should instead work for perfect self-identity to be able to sustain a perfectly working relationship.

In this case I would assess one of the following:

1) The teacher is not self aware and is just taking advantage of others to find an alternate route to happiness.

2) The student is still not completely self-identified, otherwise they would recognize the abuse and leave if it bothered them. If it didn't bother them, and it made them happy while being completely self identified, then they might be a masochist and there would be nothing wrong in the relationship. It is just not as socially acceptable and is therefore labeled as wrong without a proper analysis of both personalities that are coinciding to form the relationship in the first place.



We would not be robots. They only way we could accomplish robotic perfection is to have a perfectly functioning brain. Since everyone's brain is physically and chemically different, different interpretations of the exact same event will occur. This is what you call differing thoughts, opinions, and emotions. However, the differences can be seen and observed in the brain on a chemical and physical level. Also, scientists in a sense, can predict behavioral patterns based on both observation of the brain and observation of displayed personality. You stated earlier that you loved Criminal Minds, surely you have come across both examples of this while watching that show? Behavioral Analysis Unit. I would say that would be a unit dedicated to predicting how a criminal acts and thinks in order to catch them. If behaviors and thoughts and actions could not be predicted as you claim, departments such as those would be non-existent since they would serve no function in society for catching criminals.

Someone can be perfectly self-aware and still take advantage of others the two are not mutually exclusive.

And perfect self awareness is rare, i think, in people as a whole let alone adolescents and young adults. In this case, it would not have been a problem if their partner did not have so much power over them via a student/teacher relationship. I don't deny your assesment of masochism, but since that could result in an arguably healthy relationship, i'm not arguing against that,


Using a TV show as an argument for the predictability of human beings is very weak indeed. Real psychology does not have the superpower predictive qualities that are portrayed on TV. It may lead to an accurate prediction of a persons motives and actions at a greater than chance percentage, but not nearly with the accuracy of that shown on TV. There are plenty of other inaccuracies on that show and others if one cares to look. I simply choose not to most of the time

My comparison to robots was not that of superior analytical and observational abilities, but that of personality stasis. We would act according to internal formulas, with little deviation or care to do so. But humans, individually and as a whole, are dynamic, fascinating, often unpredictable creatures. To break everything that makes a person who they are into the mere sum of his or her parts is a narrow, bleak way of looking at the world that has no room for lifes complexities.

That's true. I'm a prime example. However, only people lacking of a conscience will instinctively take advantage of and manipulate those less capable than them. Most people are not capable of manipulating like that. They are restricted by guilt and their conscience. They are restricted by the moral codes they live by and cherish. So the odds that the teacher and student both being self aware, and then having the teacher still manipulate the student would make the student fall victim to a teacher suffering from a level of Anti-Social Personality Disorder, or some other mental illness that would cause the manipulation to occur.

If using a T.V. show does not satisfy you, then I will use something more realistic. How about myself? I analyze people, I assess them and predict how they are going to act and what they will do within specific situations. I play on certain people's emotions already knowing the results. Humans are very easy to read and predict. You can even predict when and what will cause them to do the unpredictable, and then you can even know ahead of time what the unpredictable thing is that they will do.

Life may be complex, but it is built up of a bunch of simple paths. Paths I can interpret and manipulate at will. A person is limited to what they are already programmed to do. Their programming is formed by both environment and genetics. There is nothing more to it. You simply observe someone and you see patterns of behavior. Humans are indeed fascinating creatures, but highly predictable nonetheless.

That girl that's engaged to her high school gym teacher, I think I read some of her literature (that is, if it is the same girl I'm thinking of). I digress. I think there is a fine line between what is okay and what isn't. I feel that it is far from okay if that teacher is teaching you. It is highly unprofessional, in my opinion, and highly awkward. Let's set aside age differences and laws abotu over and under age limits and go right to the focus of someone teaching you and many others. I can see if someone would have a relationship with a tutor of sorts, but when someone is teaching, you and the teacher have a secret. In your heart, you are in a different place in the heart of the teacher. This must make it awkward for while it's like you're in your own little romantic box away from the world, you have to pull off appearances that nothing is different and that student is no different. This can be either very frustrating in a relationship or near impossible and someone gets busted. This is why I say that if you are going to have a relationship with a teacher, for the love of everything make sure it isn't a teacher teaching you.

College, I feel the exact same way. While there is some acceptence due to age differences, it just seems awkward and stressful to have to teach your love interest along with the other students.

In some instances it may work out, but it must be near impossible to keep the relationship lasting.

old people why?

Hm. I don't really think it's appropriate. Especially in secondary school institutions, regardless of whether the student is of age or not. After the student is no longer attending school and the two still have interest in each other, I say "Have at it!".

Don't get me wrong, I've had my own crushes on teachers. Such are the follies of youth!

It's very inappropriate if the student is still in school, period. No matter how old the child is. I feel this goes for college as well. If the teacher REALLY cared about the student, the teacher would wait.

Believe me, I've had crushes on teachers before. Also, when I was going to high school, my math teacher got involved with a senior student. When the news broke the student's life turned upside down, and she was miserable for the rest of the school year.

Would six months of not acting on their urges have really mattered?

No.

I have no problem with this as long as she is over the age of consent, he is no older then like 30.

AND she is not in his class. Because teaching your girlfriend is favoritism, which is much more wrong then dating someone.


If it was community class for people 18 and the instructor was 25 and they hooked up, no one would cake, why should public class be different?

It really depends on the teacher. Favoritism isnt really what you call professional. Although I'm sure there are cases of favortism, there are quite a few that do their job right in this situation.



----------------------------------------------
I'm a little unsure of what my opinion is, lol. I dont think its wrong, yet I dont think its right. But..if the girlfriend is the same age as the teacher, or a couple years younger I dont see the problem..

I think it's okay if they are both over 18 and the person isn't actually their student anymore. They need to wait until it won't affect the person's grade anymore.

Honestly, I had this single teacher that was a really sweet guy and quite a bit older than me in college and if I thought I had any chance with him, I would have gone for it, but he specifically said before (because people in my class would try to set him up with people) that he only dated people who had a five year age difference from him (he's about 35 and I'm in my early 20's, so no chance there) and I could just tell he could never think of me that way.