Forum

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

Would anyone be complaining if it was his 20 something student, and if so...why? Outside of concern for him giving her good grades because they're together, I don't see any reason why a teacher and a student shouldn't be allowed to end up liking each other.

It's the position-of-power angle: yes, he might give his little kitten inflated grades, but he can also give her worse grades for not complying. Above 18 you pretty well have to ignore that because an adult's an adult(the exception being section 21.12, but I don't remember him being an employee of any primary or secondary schools).

Quote:

I've always hated the term 'statutory rape', because it just doesn't fit what it is at all. What the term was made for is a real thing, but it needs a more proper name. If two people are consenting, it is not rape, at all. Rape is forcing someone to have sex. Consent cannot be rape.

The term sums it up about as well as any could - it's rape because statute says it is, willfully pretending that consent was never given.

Quote:

Pointing at the actual issue at hand though, so a 17 year old is magically suddenly an adult compared to a child of 16? That just doesn't make much sense to me.

People like bright lines. If you really want to match really, you'd need to make inability to give consent a rebuttable assumption, to borrow a phrase, but you'd have to rewrite the statute to acknowledge it's actively declaring consent maningless, rather than ignoring its presence except as a structural quirk.

the-antihero wrote:

Does ANY thread go anywhere? You got gullible liberals talking nonsense, conservatives with varying moral codes, and the moderates in between being seen as conservatives by the liberal side and seen as liberal by the conservative side.

The bottom line is: Mother of daughter consented to the damn thing, END OF STORY!! But some twit has to say "...BUT!!! blah blah blah I say stupid things to sound moral!!"

Only a moron would think it's "end of story" just because a mother gives her blessing to an effed up union. Parents aren't always noted for their dispassionate objectivity where the actions of their offspring are involved.

And a reasonable person doesn't object to a 41-year-old marrying a 16-year-old because he or she wants to sound "moral" - it is simply a commonsense position which anyone who isn't a poorly socialized slopehead would recognize.

And why is it that most of the posters defending this creepy situation, like the one I quoted, sound like illiterate second-graders?

mangamuscle wrote:

No, technically he did not. Either you are a convicted felon, or you are not. Everything else is hearsay. It is clear inside your mind he will always be a felon, but the real world does not reside inside your mind.

Certain crimes are considered felonies, regardless of a conviction. If you assault someone, a felony has been committed. If you flee and never get caught, the assault is still a felony, only you were never tried and convicted, so you wouldn't be a felon. However, you would've still committed that felony. In the state of Texas, it is a felony for a 41 year-old man to have sex with a 16 year-old girl. Everyone knows Illich Guardiola had sex with her, therefore it is common knowledge that he committed a felony, even though he wasn't convicted, so he isn't a felon. I didn't state that I believed him to be a felon, nor am I necessarily taking a stance on what he did, so please refrain from telling me how I feel.

mangamuscle wrote:

Also, the fact that the charges he was detained do not exist in half of the country speaks volumes of how this is a cultural thing, not any kind of universally accepted value. Some people want to forget that for 99% of homo sapiens existence a 16 year old female having intercourse was irrelevant (unless there was coercion, which is relevant no matter the age). Some might want to think we are morally superior to our forefathers, I see those comments as a superiority complex due to advances in technology (which have nothing to do with advances in moral or ethic). The simple truth is that in the last hundred years a large percentage of the population now live longer and stay healthy at the same time. This trend is going to continue as further advances in medical science increase the (potential) productivity in our lifetimes. In conclusion, this kind of marriages were rare for most of mankind history because a 40+ old man was equivalent to nowadays 70+ old man (and some 70 year old can whip the floor with many 20+ younguns).

None of that changes the way people feel about it, though, nor should it. We are a product of our cultures and cultures change over time. Just because something was acceptable to an earlier version of the culture doesn't mean people are foolish for not approving of it. The fact that it may be ridiculous that a single year can make the difference in whether or not someone can give consent doesn't change the fact that the age of consent in Texas is 17, nor will it do anything to alter the stigma attached to it. You don't need to make this point as all I was trying to get across is how dissimilar your comparison was.

mangamuscle wrote:

... which disappointed many of his fans, it is the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of their work. It has nothing to do with a criminal record. It reminds me of an interview of the Man of Steel movie director where he said he choose the actor for the role of superman because he was a honest human being (sorry, I do not remember the exact quote). I thought "What? that has nothing to do with his ability (or lack thereof) as an actor, he is not running for a electoral position".

There's a big thing you're leaving out. Sure, they both disappointed their fans, but Guardiola did considerably more than that. He not only had sex with an underage girl, but she was his student. That not only irreparably damages his future ability to teach as this blatantly states that he is willing to engage in sexual intercourse with his students, but damages his career as his past infractions would also put his employers under scrutiny (while the same could indeed be said for Aya, people are much more willing to forgive a garden variety sex scandal than a high-profile arrest and marriage to an underage girl) This is a direct result of him doing things that are illegal, which is in fact criminal behavior, even though he wasn't convicted.

I think the only thing more disturbing than a 41-year old teacher marrying his 16-year old student are the people here in this thread who are totally okay with it.

That's really all I have to say about that.

So how did half of this thread develop into a tirade against Vic Mignogna? Like, what the heck did he have to do with this article??

ItAintEazy wrote:

People objecting to this marriage because they are squicked out are just the same people who oppose gay marriage because of their "values".

oh HELL no you did not just say that

ItAintEazy wrote:

Since it's a marriage between two consenting parties (the 16-year-old girl plus her mother and Guardiola), that should be the end of the story. People objecting to this marriage because they are squicked out are just the same people who oppose gay marriage because of their "values".

...You've got to be kidding me. A 40+ dude marries a 16 y/o student of his. Do you have any idea the kind of levels of f-ed up that is? There's a reason you hear stories about teachers going to jail for having sex with students. It can be emotionally scarring, and it's easy for an adult to manipulate a teenager. I don't give a f*** if she says it's consensual, are you seriously comparing thinking it's messed up for a 40+ year old teacher to have a relationship with a teenage student to gay marriage? Why would you defend a pedophile? Seriously? I feel sorry for that poor girl. She's probably going to be messed up because of all this.

Lynxikat wrote:

I think the only thing more disturbing than a 41-year old teacher marrying his 16-year old student are the people here in this thread who are totally okay with it.

That's really all I have to say about that.

Thank you. Jesus...

Polycell wrote:

It's the position-of-power angle

Bingo

My two cents: For me the squick factor comes down to the social power dynamics between the two.
Firstly, we have the teacher-student dynamic. Guardiola is a seasoned actor imparting his knowledge to a significantly less experienced actor. There are many ways that he can use this to take advantage of the girl (e.g. withholding knowledge and guidance, influencing the roles she gets, facilitating/hindering who she makes connections with in the acting community, just to name a few).
Then there's the age gap. This isn't she's 17 years and 364 days and he's 18 years and a day. He's twice her age plus almost a decade. There is a wealth of life experience that he has that she doesn't. On top of that, it's probably a safe assumption that she is still dependent on her mother. Teenagers aren't exactly children but they certainly aren't full blown adults. There's still a ton of maturing and learning to be done once a teen leaves the nest (procuring groceries and paying rent on a regular basis being just the basics). However, is she going to get that if she jumps from living with mom to living with 40-something husband? It's possible but significantly harder. She could wind up being just as dependent on him as she was on her mother, and if the relationship sours this will make it extremely hard to leave him.
Freaking kudos to them if their relationship turns into a lasting and truly loving commitment (I mean that with all sincerity). However, I just see too many opportunities for the girl to get screwed over by Guardiola (advertently or inadvertently).

Lynxikat wrote:

I think the only thing more disturbing than a 41-year old teacher marrying his 16-year old student are the people here in this thread who are totally okay with it.

THANK YOU.

I'm glad someone had the guts to say it.

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

To a degree, yes, it is. But I again call into question the way society seems to treat 16 year olds as kids, when they're very clearly not. If a person has been raised properly, by 16 years old they should be pretty capable of taking care of themselves for the most part, and starting to decide what they want for their lives.

A sixteen-year-old may not be a kid but they are not an adult either. Their brain has yet to fully develop and their hormones are still raging. They almost always lack enough life experience, and struggle to grasp what romantic love even is.

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

I understand this one as well, but it's another one I have to kind of call into question. Would anyone be complaining if it was his 20 something student, and if so...why? Outside of concern for him giving her good grades because they're together, I don't see any reason why a teacher and a student shouldn't be allowed to end up liking each other.

If they had waited till she graduated to enter into a romantic relationship then I wouldn't be disgusted. It would still be weird, but if they could have shown that they could wait a year or two then that would have proven they were serious about it. Plus, it would have been fairly strong proof that he wasn't just after sex but actually in love with her.

Anyway, as her teacher it isn't just grades he can influence her with but he can apply all sorts of subtle pressure as well. A teacher-student relationship is inherently unequal.

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

I've always hated the term 'statutory rape', because it just doesn't fit what it is at all. What the term was made for is a real thing, but it needs a more proper name. If two people are consenting, it is not rape, at all. Rape is forcing someone to have sex. Consent cannot be rape.

(emphasis mine)

Not true. Just because someone says yes doesn't automatically mean they are genuinely consenting.

This is the problem with the age difference, her being a minor, and the fact that he was her teacher. It is highly possible that he could have groomed her so that she thought she was consenting but in fact was not. I'll draw your attention to the anonymous phone calls that claimed that he had tried to seduce other girls.

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

Pointing at the actual issue at hand though, so a 17 year old is magically suddenly an adult compared to a child of 16? That just doesn't make much sense to me.

I get what you are saying. There are fourteen-year-olds who are more mature than most adults, and there are adults who have the emotional self-control of a child. But the law has to draw the line somewhere; it's simply impossible to assess everyone on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately he knew (or should have known) the law, with regards to both age of consent and teacher-student boundaries. These laws exist to provide protection to minors - whether the minors in question believe they want it or not - and he unambiguously broke those laws. He has no excuse.

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

As I admitted earlier, the marriage only happening after the traffic stop does come off a little sketchy, but with what little other info we have, I'd say it was motivated by fear of persecution more so than trying to evade the law per say.

persecution
pəːsɪˈkjuːʃn/
noun

hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression.

Please do not employ the word "persecution" when describing the actions of a man who knowingly had sex with his underage student and then ran off to Vegas with her to avoid being convicted of that offense.

Gyt Kaliba wrote:

The mother was there, doesn't seem to have fought the marriage, and now neither her nor the girl are protesting the relationship. It seems that only the cops and many people very removed from the situation are screaming 'MORALS! THIS IS A CRIME, MORALS!', which to me just reeks of this being blown out of proportion, making a mountain out of a molehill if you will.

The mother could have agreed to the marriage because she has bad judgement or thinks it will make her daughter happy. The girl could have agreed because she was groomed to believe that she loves him. We just don't know. But here's the thing; he should not have put all three of them in that situation in the first place. And if you can't see that, if you can't see how effed up this situation is and how bad his actions have been, I really question your judgement.

Last edited by Ryu Shoji on Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

I wonder if all of the people claiming that Guardiola apparently used his position and life experience to manipulate the woman who is now his wife are conveniently forgetting one point:

Guardiola's mother-in-law not only also refused to co-operate with the investigation, but attended their wedding. There are people here claiming that as her mother, she must be blinded because of the love she has for her daughter, or she has poor judgement but to be honest, that sounds like utter crap to me.

Think about it: If you find out your teenage daughter is involved in not only a romantic, but a sexual relationship with a teacher that is over twice her age, wouldn't you be the first person to go to the authorities, wanting to protect your precious daughter from a harmful predator?

As such a thing clearly hasn't happened, then it clearly means that Guardiola's mother-in-law saw no reason to believe that her daughter was being manipulated or anything like that.

I'd put a heck of a lot more stock in the opinion of someone who is directly involved in the case and knows both individuals involved on a personal level, than people who live on the other side of the country (and in other countries) who only know of Guardiola from his voice work in a few anime they've watched and are talking merely from a black-and-white moral compass.

To be honest, I'd be very interested to hear Guardiola's mother-in-law's thoughts on this whole situation.

This situation really hasn't been handled in the best way though. Yes, Guardiola should have waited until his now-wife was 17 (I think that's the legal age there?) but we don't know the exact circumstances as to how that came about. Sure, some people here seem to of the opinion that he must have used magic mind tricks or outright raped her, but maybe it was just a moment of love and passion that went too far? Who knows? I don't, because I don't know the couple - and neither do most of the people here. So why put a man in the gallows before we even know the 100% facts of the case?

If it turns out that he 100%, without a doubt, abused his position in the way other people are suggested, then sure, it's a bad thing and he should be held responsible. However, until there is that 100% certainty and especially given the ambiguity regarding the specifics of this case, it should be innocent until proven guilty, which is a mindset everyone should be adopting, especially considering that the charges against him have been dropped.

Her reasoning could be anywhere from a good old-fanshioned shotgun wedding to her boyfriend going to jail would be worse for her. Maybe he's banging the mother too and he's so good he talked her into it with his penis. /hentaiplot

@dtm42: Statutory rape probably deserves another name to highlight that consent was given, but legally considered meaningless(emphatically not counting cases where "consent" was coerced). And I'm pretty sure he meant "prosecution".

@Ryu Shoji:

*sighs*

The mother is not an impassive and objective observer. Being so close to the case clouded her judgement.

Also, charges were only dropped because no-one co-operated with the police so there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

Ryu Shoji wrote:

If it turns out that he 100%, without a doubt, abused his position in the way other people are suggested, then sure, it's a bad thing and he should be held responsible. However, until there is that 100% certainty and especially given the ambiguity regarding the specifics of this case, it should be innocent until proven guilty, which is a mindset everyone should be adopting, especially considering that the charges against him have been dropped.

I honestly don't understand why you pinheads are having trouble understanding what a lot of us are actually saying:

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE IS FOUND INNOCENT IN A COURT OF LAW.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HIS RETARDED M-I-L IS COOL WITH HER 16-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER MARRYING A 41-YEAR-OLD SO THAT HE CAN AVOID JAIL (OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON).

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HIS UNDERAGE BRIDE THINKS HE'S THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

Our point is this: a 41-year-old who marries a 16-year-old is a creep. There is no context that makes this action non-creepy.

If you pick your nose and eat snot, that's gross. I don't care if you find it is delicious. There is no context wherein picking your nose and eating the snot isn't gross. Any normal, mentally healthy person would be grossed out. It's the same thing with a 41-year-old marrying a 16-year-old. IT'S CREEPY. Jesus.

Such a ridiculously easy concept to grasp and yet there are idiots who just can't hoist it onboard. Amazing.

Knight-Hart wrote:

If Sentai's cut all ties with him, at least he can't do any more shitty dubs.

Are you freaking kidding me? That's all you can think of that matters here?

Cutiebunny wrote:

Must be horrible when a person you admire so much turns out to be a jerk.

I've experienced that disillusionment quite a bit myself online. Of course, it's actually for the better as you realize that's what they're really like. I've met quite a few artists online, for example, who are much bigger a-holes than they let on.

So? What is the legal age of consent in Texas? It must be 16 for this to occur. I laugh at this because if he only married the girl just to avoid a jail sentence, he might find that maybe jail would have been the better choice later on in his marriage. Laughing

Last edited by Ryu Shoji on Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:20 pm; edited 4 times in total

Blood- wrote:

Ryu Shoji wrote:

If it turns out that he 100%, without a doubt, abused his position in the way other people are suggested, then sure, it's a bad thing and he should be held responsible. However, until there is that 100% certainty and especially given the ambiguity regarding the specifics of this case, it should be innocent until proven guilty, which is a mindset everyone should be adopting, especially considering that the charges against him have been dropped.

I honestly don't understand why you pinheads are having trouble understanding what a lot of us are actually saying:

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE IS FOUND INNOCENT IN A COURT OF LAW.

Pretty sure it does matter if he's found innocent in a court of law, because that means it was determined that he didn't commit an offence. However, it's worth noting that having charges dropped isn't the same as being found innocent in court, because in this instance, the case didn't make it to court as there wasn't even enough evidence to make him stand trial (if I remember correctly. Admittedly, I'm not a legal expert - can someone who knows more about law clarify?).

Quote:

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HIS RETARDED M-I-L IS COOL WITH HER 16-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER MARRYING A 41-YEAR-OLD SO THAT HE CAN AVOID JAIL (OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON).

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you dared to use an accusation of someone having a severe learning difficulty as an insult.

Quote:

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HIS UNDERAGE BRIDE THINKS HE'S THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

Is sliced bread really that great anyway? I mean, where did that expression even come from? I don't think sliced bread is that amazing.

Quote:

Our point is this: a 41-year-old who marries a 16-year-old is a creep. There is no context that makes this action non-creepy.

I forgot that there is a legal definition for "creep" and that your opinion of what defines a creep is law. Oh wait...there isn't and your definition isn't the only one out there.

Quote:

If you pick your nose and eat snot, that's gross. I don't care if you find it is delicious.

Granted, but there's no evidence that he has been picking his note and eating it.

Quote:

Any normal, mentally healthy person would be grossed out. It's the same thing with a 41-year-old marrying a 16-year-old. IT'S CREEPY. Jesus.

Are you accusing me of not being mentally healthy because I have no problem with a legally married couple being legally married in a state where they can be legally married?

dtm42 wrote:

@Ryu Shoji:

*sighs*

The mother is not an impassive and objective observer. Being so close to the case clouded her judgement.

Also, charges were only dropped because no-one co-operated with the police so there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

OR
Because she's so close to the case, she knows both Guardiola and her daughter well enough to know that there isn't a problem. She would have no reason not to co-operate with the police investigation if she thought there was a serious problem and in fact, if she thought there was a problem, she most likely would have fought tooth-and-nail.

Throwing all conjecture out of the window though and looking at it objectively, we have:
- A man was accused of an offence.
- Charges against him were dropped due to a lack of evidence that he was guilty of an offence.

It's that clean cut. Until a possible time comes when further evidences comes to light that is substantial enough for him to be found guilty of an offence, then he should be considered innocent. "Innocent before proven guilty" and all that.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Sexual Assault Charges Dropped Against Voice Actor Illich Guardiola

Your Anime Rankings - Best of Summer 2024, Sep 2-8

The Concierge Anime Film Review

Bringing Ghibli's Animated Worlds into Our Own: The Ghibli Park and Ghibli Exhibition

Riding Bean Anime OAV Blu-ray Review

This Week in Anime - The Movie Game

Sailor Jupiter Voice Actress Emi Shinohara Dies at 61

A History of the Romelia Light Novels Get Anime

The ANN Aftershow - Yatagarasu Anime Finally Returns

MARVEL vs. CAPCOM Fighting Collection: Arcade Classics Game Review

Hololive's Second English Vtuber Concert was a Dimension-Breaking Success

Toyo Keizai: Dragon Ball Rights Are Unresolved After Akira Toriyama's Death

Ninja Scroll Signed Shikishi Giveaway! (Fixed)

BAKERU Game Review

Forum - View topicNEWS: Sexual Assault Charges Dropped Against Voice Actor Illich Guardiola

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Sexual Assault Charges Dropped Against Voice Actor Illich Guardiola