Opinion Teacher-Student relations.

[Project Naiad]

I wasn't actually saying it was going to end poorly. At least not with the family question. I was more asking how do you think people should treat their relatives having a problem with their relationship and raising valid/in-valid concerns. Admittedly that's on me I wasn't like super clear with the question.

Obviously I don't think they should just go "Fuck off I'm right". I just think they should try to come to a mutual understanding.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Obviously I don't think they should just go "Fuck off I'm right". I just think they should try to come to a mutual understanding.

Ah now on that I think we can both agree. I mean I don't got to like the decisions everyone in my family makes ( I got me some Trump Voting rednecks in my family who think the gov'ment comin' for their money so they converted it to gold and hid it on their property like this is the 1700s ) but you love your family through whatever stupid shit you think their doing.

It's the point of being a family.

 

[Project Naiad]

Ah now on that I think we can both agree. I mean I don't got to like the decisions everyone in my family makes ( I got me some Trump Voting rednecks in my family who think the gov'ment comin' for their money so they converted it to gold and hid it on their property like this is the 1700s ) but you love your family through whatever stupid shit you think their doing.

It's the point of being a family.

Of course, if there's a way to come to a pacific solution then by all means it should be taken.

 

[Project Naiad]

Look, if it is a hypothetical scenario, then my points still stand. Within the confines of this hypothetical scenario, these questions should be raised. And if it's not, then those questions still should be asked.

My point is that if you dismiss their advice or concerns off the bat, which you seem to believe would be the correct solution in that situation, then you're being incredibly stupid. It would be, as previously shown by example, as if EA thought that all the advice given to them about Battlefront II is wrong and dismissed it out of hand.

Aside from your cryptic example. If you read my last posts you'd find out that cutting off your family at the first sign of disagreement is not what I actually believe.

 

[rae2nerdy]

"If your family doesn't support you when you're having a healthy relationship (weird or non weird) it is their problem not yours imo."

"If your family does not agree with your decision and would like to bring forward advice, criticisms, or suggestions about your healthy relationship, whether or not it's weird, then that's their problem, not yours, and they're in the wrong."

"If your family disagrees with you, they're wrong."

In fairness they did expand on that later down the road to be more of a situational thing

Obviously I don't think they should just go "Fuck off I'm right". I just think they should try to come to a mutual understanding. Project Naiad

I think I just worded my first response poorly. They thought I meant parents that didn't support their kids for some kind of prudish reason and not parents that are raising valid criticisms.

 

[Project Naiad]

"If your family doesn't support you when you're having a healthy relationship (weird or non weird) it is their problem not yours imo."

"If your family does not agree with your decision and would like to bring forward advice, criticisms, or suggestions about your healthy relationship, whether or not it's weird, then that's their problem, not yours, and they're in the wrong."

"If your family disagrees with you, they're wrong."

Could you please quote where exactly I wrote the last two sentences?

 

[Hall Kervean]

In fairness they did expand on that later down the road to be more of a situational thing

Obviously I don't think they should just go "Fuck off I'm right". I just think they should try to come to a mutual understanding. Project Naiad

I think I just worded my first response poorly. They thought I meant parents that didn't support their kids for some kind of prudish reason and not parents that are raising valid criticisms.

Prudish reasons can be valid criticisms, and I do agree that they probably did just word it wrong.
But as they worded it, they were saying that any criticism of a relationship is unjustified and wrong, whether that was what they intended to say or not.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Could you please quote where exactly I wrote the last two sentences?

I wrote them to expand on your sentence and accurately present my interpretation of it.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Prudish reasons can be valid criticisms, and I do agree that they probably did just word it wrong.
But as they worded it, they were saying that any criticism of a relationship is unjustified and wrong, whether that was what they intended to say or not.

True, as a life long prude I should have definitely worded that better myself. Still I think the point they were trying to make is that if your parents are going to toss you out full stop for not adhering to their wants / wishes than you should be able to tell them to fuck off with equal fervor.

 

[Hall Kervean]

True, as a life long prude I should have definitely worded that better myself. Still I think the point they were trying to make is that if your parents are going to toss you out full stop for not adhering to their wants / wishes than you should be able to tell them to fuck off with equal fervor.

And with that I agree. That's a logical point. But again, the way it was worded implied that they are immune from criticism.

 

[Project Naiad]

True, as a life long prude I should have definitely worded that better myself. Still I think the point they were trying to make is that if your parents are going to toss you out full stop for not adhering to their wants / wishes than you should be able to tell them to fuck off with equal fervor.

I simply meant that if your family disapproves of your relationship over futile motives then they're just hindering your happiness.
I'll agree I worded it wrong in the first place, but yeah, I didn't mean cut off your family if they give you reasonable but unwanted advice or something.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I simply meant that if your family disapproves of your relationship over futile motives then they're just hindering your happiness.
I'll agree I worded it wrong in the first place, but yeah, I didn't mean cut off your family if they give you reasonable but unwanted advice or something.

Actually not to start an argument again when we're finally being civil but I think your reaction to the parent issue sort of proves the point sort of illustrates how biases work. You assume that the family must automatically be bad people if they don't support a relationship. It is only when I brought up the nuance of the situation that you allowed for some leeway.

But your first reaction was still - oh adults/the family are just being unfair and making up garbage excuses to stand in the way of the happiness of the student x teacher.

But nothing in my statement backed up that viewpoint. I didn't say the family had valid OR invalid concerns only that they had concerns. You assumed the negative connotation.

Now I want you to imagine that instead of having the immediate negative connotation to people fighting AGAINST the relationship you had that same immediate negative connotation to that relationship itself.

That is the difference between us. I inherently see the negative of the relationship in the same knee jerk way you immediately assumed that anyone arguing against the relationship had to be doing so in bad faith.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Also sub point on the parent issue specifically. How do you qualify what is a futile argument? I mean in your teens your going to think many valid reactions that adults have are "futile" because you don't have the necessary framework to understand their points of view. For instance - someone kicking their relative out for being gay. It's easy from a progressive standpoint to look at that and say "What homophobic pieces of shit." But what if the parent is extremely devout and believes with all their heart that being gay means their kid is going to hell. Should you have the right to tell them their faith is wrong and stupid just because you don't agree with it? How is that any different from "old ladies" frowning over something they think is weird?


----------------------------------------------------------------

Additional anecdote.

My mom actually just told me a story where a 26 year old teacher was very familiar with her as a 14 year old. He never did anything sexual but he still treated her like an equal. He would come to her house, hang out with her, take her boating, get drunk with her, let her smoke in his classroom.

It's not a romantic relationship but it is a relationship. And moreover one her foster family encouraged.

Would you say that was okay?

 

[Starchild]

Added this edit to the first post:

Edit
This edit is to clarify this scenario.

1. The student has graduated and is 18-19, and the teacher has either quit or is still working at the school.
   
2. The teacher has quit, but the student has not yet graduated, but has turned 18 already.

Interesting to read all of these replies, though. Thank you.

 

[Project Naiad]

Actually not to start an argument again when we're finally being civil but I think your reaction to the parent issue sort of proves the point sort of illustrates how biases work. You assume that the family must automatically be bad people if they don't support a relationship. It is only when I brought up the nuance of the situation that you allowed for some leeway.

But your first reaction was still - oh adults/the family are just being unfair and making up garbage excuses to stand in the way of the happiness of the student x teacher.

But nothing in my statement backed up that viewpoint. I didn't say the family had valid OR invalid concerns only that they had concerns. You assumed the negative connotation.

Now I want you to imagine that instead of having the immediate negative connotation to people fighting AGAINST the relationship you had that same immediate negative connotation to that relationship itself.

That is the difference between us. I inherently see the negative of the relationship in the same knee jerk way you immediately assumed that anyone arguing against the relationship had to be doing so in bad faith.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Also sub point on the parent issue specifically. How do you qualify what is a futile argument? I mean in your teens your going to think many valid reactions that adults have are "futile" because you don't have the necessary framework to understand their points of view. For instance - someone kicking their relative out for being gay. It's easy from a progressive standpoint to look at that and say "What homophobic pieces of shit." But what if the parent is extremely devout and believes with all their heart that being gay means their kid is going to hell. Should you have the right to tell them their faith is wrong and stupid just because you don't agree with it? How is that any different from "old ladies" frowning over something they think is weird?


----------------------------------------------------------------

Additional anecdote.

My mom actually just told me a story where a 26 year old teacher was very familiar with her as a 14 year old. He never did anything sexual but he still treated her like an equal. He would come to her house, hang out with her, take her boating, get drunk with her, let her smoke in his classroom.

It's not a romantic relationship but it is a relationship. And moreover one her foster family encouraged.

Would you say that was okay?

Yes I was making assumptions about the family, so were you about the relationship, we're all making assumptions here, it's what I've been saying since the beginning. How does it make my view flawed but yours not?

About the gay thing then yes, I'd have a major problem with my family if they stopped supporting me for being gay, whether it was because or prejudice or religion.

In the final scenario I'm not okay with them still being teacher and student, and the smoking and drinking part (especially if it was the adult encouraging it)

 

[rae2nerdy]

1. The student has graduated and is 18-19, and the teacher has either quit or is still working at the school.
   
2. The teacher has quit, but the student has not yet graduated, but has turned 18 already.

.

Alright to make sure we all have all the variables here are some follow up questions

General Follow Up
1. How old is the teacher?
2. What is the age of consent where this takes place?
3. When did this relationship start? How?
4. Is the relationship sexual? Romantic? Both? Neither? ( I realized this was never actually specified we all kind of assumed )
5. What do the parents feel about their kid dating their teacher? Or really any of the follow up questions.

Specific Follow Ups
1. If the teacher is still working at the school ( and the child is over the age of consent ) what is the school policy for fraternization? How are they able to keep their job?

2. If the teacher loses their job how are they able to make a living? Especially if they lose their job for dating a student? Do they find an institution where this is okay and work there?

3. If the teacher quits what do they do until they can find another job? Do they live with the student and their family?

Edit : Additional Questions
1. is the relationship homosexual?
2. is it interracial?
3. is it interfaith? ( does it take place at a religious school )
4. is it a public school / private one?

IMPORTANT QUESTION
1. Are we talking in the real world or in a literary world / for roleplaying?

 

[rae2nerdy]

Yes I was making assumptions about the family, so were you about the relationship, we're all making assumptions here, it's what I've been saying since the beginning. How does it make my view flawed but yours not?

About the gay thing then yes, I'd have a major problem with my family if they stopped supporting me for being gay, whether it was because or prejudice or religion.

In the final scenario I'm not okay with them still being teacher and student, and the smoking and drinking part (especially if it was the adult encouraging it)

I am not saying your view is flawed. I am actually saying your view is VALID you just might have worded it wrong because of extreme emotion. The point I was trying to get at is that we both have valid reasons for thinking the things we do we just might not always word them correctly.

I don't know why you assumed the parents had to be assholes if they don't support your relationship. That's your lived experience/opinion and not my business.

I am just saying if you can have a valid reason for feeling that way then other people can have valid lived in reasons for thinking differently.

As I said with the gay example - You think that religion is not a valid reason for giving up on your kid. But presumably you are not from a extremely devote / religious family or you would understand the example. Religion isn't something some people can toss aside just because it's no longer convenient to their lived experiences. That is not how real faith works.

The same thing with the inappropriateness of a student x teacher relationship. You can easily toss aside the bad implications and choose to focus on the good ones. But what if the person who was asked had actually been in an inappropriate relationship with their teacher ( like my mom ). I asked her the question from the OP and immediately her response was - No this is not okay.

Because she has lived an experience very similar to this ( and hell she has lived what is actually a very rainbow and sunshine version of this relationship where none of the bad things I have been saying actually happened. ) But you and I can both see it was still an inappropriate situation.

But that is presumably because we are both much older than 14 and we can see how an adult was taking advantage of her. All I'm saying is that there was never any indication from the original opening post ( or even the follow up yet ) that it wasn't also a inappropriate relationship.


I am not trying to invalidate your opinion I am merely trying to get to a point where we can agree that both views of the relationship have valid reasons for them. It isn't just a matter of one person being negative and dismissing a relationship for no reason.

Just the same that your first response to the parent question had a reasoning behind it ( even if i still think it's a little extreme I can at least acknowledge there is a reasoning behind it. )

The same with your relationship take. I don't agree with it but I can at least acknowledge that you have a reason for taking the more rainbow happy version into account where I focus on the worst case scenario.

 

[Project Naiad]

I am not saying your view is flawed. I am actually saying your view is VALID you just might have worded it wrong because of extreme emotion. The point I was trying to get at is that we both have valid reasons for thinking the things we do we just might not always word them correctly.

I don't know why you assumed the parents had to be assholes if they don't support your relationship. That's your lived experience/opinion and not my business.

I am just saying if you can have a valid reason for feeling that way then other people can have valid lived in reasons for thinking differently.

As I said with the gay example - You think that religion is not a valid reason for giving up on your kid. But presumably you are not from a extremely devote / religious family or you would understand the example. Religion isn't something some people can toss aside just because it's no longer convenient to their lived experiences. That is not how real faith works.

The same thing with the inappropriateness of a student x teacher relationship. You can easily toss aside the bad implications and choose to focus on the good ones. But what if the person who was asked had actually been in an inappropriate relationship with their teacher ( like my mom ). I asked her the question from the OP and immediately her response was - No this is not okay.

Because she has lived an experience very similar to this ( and hell she has lived what is actually a very rainbow and sunshine version of this relationship where none of the bad things I have been saying actually happened. ) But you and I can both see it was still an inappropriate situation.

But that is presumably because we are both much older than 14 and we can see how an adult was taking advantage of her. All I'm saying is that there was never any indication from the original opening post ( or even the follow up yet ) that it wasn't also a inappropriate relationship.


I am not trying to invalidate your opinion I am merely trying to get to a point where we can agree that both views of the relationship have valid reasons for them. It isn't just a matter of one person being negative and dismissing a relationship for no reason.

Just the same that your first response to the parent question had a reasoning behind it ( even if i still think it's a little extreme I can at least acknowledge there is a reasoning behind it. )

The same with your relationship take. I don't agree with it but I can at least acknowledge that you have a reason for taking the more rainbow happy version into account where I focus on the worst case scenario.

Of course both our views can be valid. I wasn't trying to assert my view's validity over yours. I was simply trying to show why I think my views are valid, just like you did with yours.

As a last thing I'd also like to point out that even in the original post I never said that your relatives are assholes if they disagree with you.
I simply meant to state my belief that if your family refuses to support you when you're having a HEALTHY relationship out of futile reasons (and yes I consider religion as such, because in my eyes this type of bond should be stronger than religion), then it is their problem, not yours. And I stick by that view.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Of course both our views can be valid. I wasn't trying to assert my view's validity over yours. I was simply trying why I think my views are valid, just like you did with yours.

As a last thing I'd also like to point out that even in the original post I never said that your relatives are assholes if they disagree with you.
I simply meant to state my belief that if your family refuses to support you when you're having a HEALTHY relationship out of futile reasons (and yes I consider religion as such, because in my eyes this type of bond should be stronger than religion), then it is their problem, not yours. And I stick by that view.

And my point is that how you determine what is a futile reason might very well change as you get older. I mean using my mom as an example. When she was hanging out with a 26 year old at 14 she thought that was the coolest thing ever and that they were real equals and friends.

But as people who are much older we can see - oh no that's not at all appropriate why would her guardians let that happen?

But that response is because
1. we are not living that experience right now
2. we are both presumably much older than my mom was then and thus can get perspective.

With the gay issue especially it's not as cut and dry as just - You Need To Love Your Kid. That's like breaking being gay into a simple statement of - You Should Just Like The 'Right' Gender. / Stop Liking The 'Wrong' One.

I mean that's not how sexuality works. And true faith isn't a simple matter of - Oh I don't believe anymore because it's no longer convenient for me to do so. If your faith is that weak it wasn't real faith to begin with.

Now to clarify I don't think you should stop supporting your relative because their gay OR really for that matter if their dating someone you don't approve of. I just think that religion is a valid reason for not approving of something.

Like the point I'm trying to get at is just that you shouldn't dismiss any concern brought up in good faith as invalid just because you don't agree with it.

If someone is making an argument for a genuinely selfish reason - I don't like your relationship because it makes ME look bad. Than yeah that's futile and stupid. It's not your life so who gives a crap how it makes you look?

But if someone is making a heartfelt argument ( even if the reasoning behind it you might think is stupid ) than you should treat that like a valid concern and not just dismiss it.

 

[Project Naiad]

And my point is that how you determine what is a futile reason might very well change as you get older. I mean using my mom as an example. When she was hanging out with a 26 year old at 14 she thought that was the coolest thing ever and that they were real equals and friends.

But as people who are much older we can see - oh no that's not at all appropriate why would her guardians let that happen?

But that response is because
1. we are not living that experience right now
2. we are both presumably much older than my mom was then and thus can get perspective.

With the gay issue especially it's not as cut and dry as just - You Need To Love Your Kid. That's like breaking being gay into a simple statement of - You Should Just Like The 'Right' Gender. / Stop Liking The 'Wrong' One.

I mean that's not how sexuality works. And true faith isn't a simple matter of - Oh I don't believe anymore because it's no longer convenient for me to do so. If your faith is that weak it wasn't real faith to begin with.

Now to clarify I don't think you should stop supporting your relative because their gay OR really for that matter if their dating someone you don't approve of. I just think that religion is a valid reason for not approving of something.

Like the point I'm trying to get at is just that you shouldn't dismiss any concern brought up in good faith as invalid just because you don't agree with it.

If someone is making an argument for a genuinely selfish reason - I don't like your relationship because it makes ME look bad. Than yeah that's futile and stupid. It's not your life so who gives a crap how it makes you look?

But if someone is making a heartfelt argument ( even if the reasoning behind it you might think is stupid ) than you should treat that like a valid concern and not just dismiss it.

Everyone's views can change as they become more experienced, this is my current view.
We obviously have different ideas about family, religion and maturity. I exposed mine as clearly as I could, I can find nothing else to elaborate on.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Everyone's views can change as they become more experienced, this is my current view.
We obviously have different ideas about family, religion and maturity. I exposed mine as clearly as I could, I can find nothing else to elaborate on.

And I think we can agree on that.

Although the gay thing does bring up a side point that I'll have to add on to my question to starchild but we can start a conversation here.

What if the relationship is not just student x teacher but
1. A homosexual one
2. Between non-binary people ( I think that's the right term )
3. interracial
4. interfaith
5. any combination of the above.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I would say not sure on the non-binary as I'm not even entirely sure if that's the proper term for people in a relationship that are not the traditional male / female gender.

Homosexual, interfaith, interacial - I personally don't care but I live in one of the most racist states in the Country so I'm very aware that this could lead to a lot of additional pushback from the community if not an increased chance of jail time.

Interfaith/Interracial can also increase the chance of having little in common or different life experiences that might interfere with the longevity of the relationship. Especially if we're talking someone who is more privileged because of their race/religion than the other person.

I mean in an ideal world these extra questions wouldn't matter at all. But in our current environment ( at least in the US ) these could turn a relationship from questionable to outright hated and even potentially dangerous for the people involved.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Starchild oops some more follow ups. You can answer these with the ones above or just answer 'em all separately however you want to do that.

GENERAL FOLLOW UP II

1. Is the relationship consensual?

RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONS

1. Why are the people in a relationship? Do they like one another, are they physically attracted, to they just have a kink for doing forbidden things?
2. Is one person more assertive and making the decisions in the relationship or is it a equal partnership?
3. Do the two people have anything in common?
4. Are they in a relationship for the long term or just a short term fling?

MY THOUGHTS ON THE QUESTION
Also wow I did not realize there were so many variables in this. I feel like I'm interviewing you over a hypothetical question.

But given the current refined question ( and without any additional information through follow ups )

I think it is still a matter of an authority figure who is taking advantage of someone who they should be in a position of power over. Now depending on additional variables that might change but for now I don't see much difference between a 26 year old hanging out with a 14 year old or a 18 year old if that that 26 year old is a teacher and the 14 or 18 year old is a student or even former student.

And the reason for that is this - there is no passage of time here. There is no transition ( other than on paper ) between the teacher and student relationship. Just because someone is no longer literally teaching you in a classroom doesn't make them any less your teacher.

Hell there are people that taught me in high school that I would still consider my teachers and I'm over a decade out of school.

So just because a student graduates OR the teacher quits/loses their job and just because the two individuals might both technically be legal adults it doesn't change the fact that the relationship is still that of a teacher and student. It just happens to be that without the literal act of one person educating another through a classroom setting.

So what that tells me is either there was NEVER a student teacher relationship in which case the teacher was always treating their student like an equal and potential romantic/sexual partner ( which I find highly inappropriate ) or the teacher is still the person of authority in the relationship in which case it's a power imbalance which I also find inappropriate ( just admittedly in a more general and less specific way ).


Now if we're talking someone dating their former teacher several years later ( after college or at least a few years into it ) than I don't think that's quite as big of a deal as long as the two are both consenting.

So I mean I guess if you want to be in a relationship with your teacher/student than you should probably wait until the "professional" relationship ends organically and there is some distance so that you can both come at it from a more equal footing without any additional baggage.

If the relationship is a healthy one between two people who genuinely care for one another I don't see how waiting a few more years to really start anything is going to be too big of a hassle.

And if it isn't a healthy relationship distance will let you see that and also let you get away from the toxic person/situation and find better partnerships.


( now again that's my feeling only based on the information i have been given at this time. that might change with additional information given through follow ups )

 

[Project Naiad]

If the relationship is a healthy one between two people who genuinely care for one another I don't see how waiting a few more years to really start anything is going to be too big of a hassle.

Come on that is so unrealistic. Affection and love don't wait for a few years, they need to be nurtured. If you wait they might fade.
Who meets someone they click with and just goes "Sure just wait for me for a couple years before we get together"?

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

ing.

Alright, how about we say it's morally and legally questionable to the point where it is widely seen as despicable. Hence, when people talk about someone (around 25) dating a 16 year old, it's seen as disgusting. There, it's not pedophilia, it's just morally abhorrent. I'm glad we could all come to a definition agreement.

Well, depends. It's not entirely illegal and morally speaking, that's subjective.

Hey, you're not 21, you shouldn't be able to drink alcohol because it can adversely affect your mind and actually have a severe impact on you.
Hey you're not 25 so you should take advice and avoid trying to be romantically involved (especially with your teacher)=/=hey you're not 25 so you don't get to think about whether or not EA's Battlefront II lootboxes are alright.
Do you see how your logic is faulty and how your rewording does no accurately portray the situation?

Based on the logic they gave, yes, that would be a sound retort.

You're deeply mistaken dear, it's not my logic, it's their logic I turned on them by suggesting that because they're not fully developed they can't give an opinion or make a valid choice. Try reading the posts once more, you might notice that. But I'm glad you completely missed it. lol

That's a minority. There are people at 17 who THINK they are, but they rarely actually are.
And if we make a sweeping generalization to accommodate the minority, we'd be dumb.
"Since a small minority of people can afford to pay more for their internet, it's ok to allow providers to lock of chunks of your internet and force you to go through a paywall."

That's a minority? How are you quantifying that? Who is to say they are or are not? You? Didn't realise you were the arbiter of what someone can mentally be capable of doing.

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

I did not see the 18 - 20 part. Could you link it? I am going off the opening post which is

What's your opinion on teacher-student relations when either part has quit the school? (High School) Related question: Does the origin of a relationship matter at all down the road? Opening Post

And that does specify High School students.

As to the knee jerk reaction maybe it is overly emotional. But even taking that out you are likewise assuming a lot more benevolent reaction to the OP's opening statement than is actually written. I mean I genuinely didn't see the 18 - 20 part but even still the conversation is presumably still about an teacher x student.

I have said I do not feel this is an appropriate relationship because it is one person taking advantage of another. The age of the participants doesn't change that opinion.

Now if the OP tells me this is a loving relationship that starts off in a beautiful way and leads to a life long commitment than that is obviously a little different. But they haven't said that. They only said - student x teacher.

That's the edited OP, that was originally there on the high school part. If it was originally there, which I'm 75% sure it wasn't, then I'm in the wrong on that front, but my point is still proven and remains. Whether the person dating the instructor is in high school or not, the former instructor no longer remains and nothing is evident it was because of persuasion. That's still be a grossly made assumption on your part. You haven't actually argued why it's wrong other than a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm not assuming a benevolent reaction, I'm being nuanced. Pointing out areas you may disregard is simply stating the obvious of a nuanced situation or question. At least it comes from a rational standpoint, which should be better than an emotional one.

Your emotional reaction is, as I said, not without warrant, but it's a wrong mindset to have and it's not nuanced on a nuanced topic. God, I hate repeating that word, "nuance(d)."

Exactly, that's my point. You're assuming the worst and assuming I'm assuming the best. It can be either and we need the OP to clarify that. But I believe it's remained as vague as it is for a reason. It's simply on the basis of a student and teacher (former) relationship and if that is OK morally. The answer is yes, because there's nothing inherently wrong, morally/.