What's up with Female Teachers

JKendallDane said:

I
What seems like an epidemic is nothing more than cases hitting the news far more than previously.

Click to expand...

Maybe. The problem with more widespread reporting is that it makes everything seem more prevalent - which makes it hard to tell if things really are more prevalent. I've been online in one form or another for long enough to be certain that teens are more sexualized and sexually active than they were even 15 years ago. I think technology has played a role. We do hear more about things, but I strongly suspect there's also more to hear about.

This isn't an anti-technology rant. The internet has had immeasurable effects, both good and bad; something akin to the invention of the printing press in scope. You can't assign it a good/bad score because immeasurable means immeasurable.

But it's never been so easy for a teen to send a quick pic of something hot to another teen - I mean snapchat is the ultimate tease platform, with that ten second timer. You used to have to get a girl alone to get sexual with her (and girls limited alone time for that reason) - now, if she has a cell phone, you can poke her sexuality 24/7. That's a game changer in the seduction business, and looking around, the game has indeed changed.

HandsInTheDark said:

The problem with more widespread reporting is that it makes everything seem more prevalent - which makes it hard to tell if things really are more prevalent. I've been online in one form or another for long enough to be certain that teens are more sexualized and sexually active than they were even 15 years ago. I think technology has played a role. We do hear more about things, but I strongly suspect there's also more to hear about.

Click to expand...

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...ents-less-sexually-active-perceived-study.htm

Perceptions that young adolescents in the United States are more sexually active today than in the past is (sic) largely unfounded, according to a report in the April issue of the journal Pediatrics.
...

"When you look at some polling data of the general public, there are chunks of Americans who believe most (young teens) are having sex," lead author and director of domestic research for the Guttmacher Institute, Lawrence Finer said, according to USA Today. "But it was never the case ... and these are long-term patterns."

Click to expand...

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/american-teens-sexual-and-reproductive-health

Teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006–2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 14% of never-married males in that age-group had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.

Click to expand...

Also in Canada:
http://sexualityandu.ca/uploads/files/CTR_TeensMoreSexually.pdf

Using research on sexual behaviour of Canadian teens at different periods, Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale, a professor and researcher at the University of Windsor... found that age of first intercourse has been relatively stable since the 1970s and concluded: “Clearly, teens are not initiating sexual intercourse earlier, but rather slightly later than their parent’s generation.”

Click to expand...

Availability bias is a powerful force.

Bramblethorn said:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...ents-less-sexually-active-perceived-study.htm

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/american-teens-sexual-and-reproductive-health

Also in Canada:
http://sexualityandu.ca/uploads/files/CTR_TeensMoreSexually.pdf

Availability bias is a powerful force.

Click to expand...

That doesn't match my experiences and I'm pretty good at being aware of mental biases. But I've noted I'm working from a dataset based on discussions with people associated with erotic and sexual roleplay websites. I could just be running into the hornballs. And by fiat I'm running into people with a heavy online presence. I wonder how the data looks when you parse it by internet availability, call phone availability, being in college, etc.

Small datasets are treacherous, but very large ones are deceiving.

A statistic I'd like to see is how many unmarried people (and let's count living together for over a year as married) are virgins at age 24, now and in 1950. But I'm not sure how to account for the fact that people in 1950 would have lied their asses off.

HandsInTheDark said:

That doesn't match my experiences and I'm pretty good at being aware of mental biases. But I've noted I'm working from a dataset based on discussions with people associated with erotic and sexual roleplay websites. I could just be running into the hornballs.

Click to expand...

Yep, there's the catch. Without some sort of statistically rigorous approach, we can only gauge these things from our personal acquaintance, and literally nobody has a circle of acquaintances that's representative of the general population.

With stuff like sexuality, it gets even trickier because there's a huge gulf between what goes on and what you hear about, in both directions. People exaggerate or understate their record (or both) depending on how they're asked and who they're talking to

Some years back I was talking to a good friend about polyamory; she told me she didn't know anybody who was poly. What I didn't tell her at the time was: actually, you know at least five people who are poly, you just don't know it.

Small datasets are treacherous, but very large ones are deceiving.

Click to expand...

The problem with large datasets (well, one of them) is that people assume size = accuracy. Large n reduces the sampling error, but it doesn't do anything for the systematic error, which is very often the larger of the two.

A statistic I'd like to see is how many unmarried people (and let's count living together for over a year as married) are virgins at age 24, now and in 1950. But I'm not sure how to account for the fact that people in 1950 would have lied their asses off.

Click to expand...

Indeed. What I've seen (all anecdotal) suggests that extramarital sex was more common in the 1950s than anybody was willing to admit to, but it's hard to put numbers on that.

Not quite what you're asking for, but some numbers here show a slight increase in virginity in US 15-19-year-olds, from 1988 to around 2002-6, and then no significant change as of 2013. I think they had a similar finding for 20-24-year-olds, but it's past my bedtime so I won't try to chase it up just now.

R. Richard said:

No, they are not taken out of circulation, at least not in the USA. The union contracts apparently forbid that. They are dismissed, with no real reason given. The pervert can then go to another state and molest children there.

Click to expand...

Except in New York city, where they are moved to a special school with no students to wait until the school board and union work something out. There are teachers there who have been collecting their salaries for years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chool-begged-parents-not-reported-police.html

A case in point. Kindergarten teacher and athletic director at Lutheran School.
Now she faces 13 yes in jail.
"Third female teacher" in "southeast Wisconsin" to be arrested this year on similar charges.

So.....

Twenty, fifty years ago the same exact thing was going on? Really?

If that's the case, what's behind this?
I don't see a witch hunt in the way the press reports it. You may in the comments section, but the news reports seem just straightforward.

Bramblethorn said:

The problem with large datasets (well, one of them) is that people assume size = accuracy. Large n reduces the sampling error, but it doesn't do anything for the systematic error, which is very often the larger of the two.

Click to expand...

Just so. And people assume large samples mean we've arrived on some sort of global truth. Maybe we have - but you don't live in a global community. You have the 50 people in your life who really are rather like you, and the statistics from a large sample size won't likely apply to them.

Statistics are great for a lot of things. I don't much trust them in regards to sociology, because I think that at our current level of understanding, sociology is mostly witch doctor science to begin with.

Indeed. What I've seen (all anecdotal) suggests that extramarital sex was more common in the 1950s than anybody was willing to admit to, but it's hard to put numbers on that.

Click to expand...

I've done my share of digging and we don't know anything about 1950s sexuality. It had two problems: one, it was the golden age of Belief In Science; science could do no wrong, so pretty much all you had to do was put on a white coat and spout stuff and it was taken as gospel. The methodology thing didn't always get enough attention. Second, virtually all the research was done by straight men with suspiciously similar views, so I really don't trust the numbers on any sex research from that era. I'm not saying sincere research wasn't done, but it's hard to tell good from bad. And it was a culture when premarital sex was bad. So people didn't admit it. Pop culture contained its share of references to hot 16 year old girls but that might have been wishful thinking not a mirror on existing sexual practice.

Not quite what you're asking for, but some numbers here show a slight increase in virginity in US 15-19-year-olds, from 1988 to around 2002-6, and then no significant change as of 2013. I think they had a similar finding for 20-24-year-olds, but it's past my bedtime so I won't try to chase it up just now.

Click to expand...

The AIDS epidemic stopped accelerating in the US around 1996. It scared a lot of people out of bed (but not enough, as it turned out). There's a lot more forces at work on sexuality than just social pressures. This is WHY I think sociology is new agey witchcraft - there are so many factors influencing human behaviour that it's borderline impossible to prove what factors are at play.

I look at sociology this way. If it worked, politicians would use it to get ahead of trends and get themselves elected. This year, the US populace proved that politicians on the right (and to a much lesser degree on the left) simply don't understand their own electorate and have lost complete control of the processes they thought they owned. In retrospect, it was all in the tea leaves waiting to be read: the US electorate has had vast and growing rage building up for 20 years, and now people are pissed enough and cynical enough to pull voting levers in a way that has politicians and media personalities gibbering in fear. THEY couldn't measure their own constituency? It's not like the sample size is small. But in walks Trump, having done very little market research - he doesn't have to, his gut is better than that - and literally yanks the party away from the defacto rulers, while they stare and whimper and find they can't even mount a meaningful response.

Sociology my ass. Do all the surveys you want; you can't measure people with yes or no questions.

I assume people fuck and eat and shit and all the things people do. I ignore self reports and surveys as evidence for anything.

With regards to sex I believe people from 6 to 60 are sensitive for opportunities to do sex.

NOIRTRASH said:

I assume people fuck and eat and shit and all the things people do. I ignore self reports and surveys as evidence for anything.

With regards to sex I believe people from 6 to 60 are sensitive for opportunities to do sex.

Click to expand...

I must have been a late bloomer, I didn't think about having sex until at least six and a half, it might have even been seven.

Zeb_Carter said:

I must have been a late bloomer, I didn't think about having sex until at least six and a half, it might have even been seven.

Click to expand...

All the little girls I knew were born ready for love.

HandsInTheDark said:

I've done my share of digging and we don't know anything about 1950s sexuality. It had two problems: one, it was the golden age of Belief In Science; science could do no wrong, so pretty much all you had to do was put on a white coat and spout stuff and it was taken as gospel. The methodology thing didn't always get enough attention. Second, virtually all the research was done by straight men with suspiciously similar views, so I really don't trust the numbers on any sex research from that era.

Click to expand...

Kinsey is a rather large exception to that!

I'm not saying sincere research wasn't done, but it's hard to tell good from bad.

Click to expand...

On that I agree 100%. But the research done in the 1950s isn't our only source of information on that era. We still have people who were alive then; some are willing to talk about what they got up to, or left journals.

Or we can look at the indirect evidence. All the anti-VD campaigns in the 1940s and 50s existed because people were catching VD at high rates; the highest rate of syphilis infection ever recorded in the USA was in 1947, so we can presume there was still a lot of non-marital hanky-panky going on. (After that, penicillin caused a massive drop.)

CDC has numbers on births to unmarried women. In 1955 the rate was around 20 births per 1000 unmarried US women (aged 15+). Among women aged 20-29 it was about 30 per 1000 - or put another way, about 1/30th of unmarried women had a child just in that one year, even without counting those who aborted or got married in a hurry before the baby arrived.

That figure's a fair bit lower than the rates today, and comparison is muddied by the introduction of the contraceptive pill and by reduced stigma on unmarried parenting, but it's still high enough to suggest that premarital sex was more common in the 1950s than is often thought.

I look at sociology this way. If it worked, politicians would use it to get ahead of trends and get themselves elected.

Click to expand...

There you're moving from measurement of the past and present to prediction of the future. That's a much harder challenge for science in general, not just sociology. Chaos theory, the three-body problem, the Entscheidungsproblem - even in the "hard sciences", even in simplified systems where we know the rules exactly and they're 100% deterministic, some systems are inherently unpredictable in the long term.

But politicians do use measurement of the present and near-future predictions to win elections. Obama's campaigns, especially in 2012, made heavy use of sophisticated sociological prediction methods to figure out where to target their efforts and what approaches to use.

I've always assumed it's a "man bites dog" effect. Male teachers being sexual predators to their female students is "expected" and not as exciting, the reverse seems novel and exciting and so is instantly promoted to national news.

The other part of it that goes unspoken but everybody knows is the inherent assumption that the male is always the predator and the female is always the prey, so an older guy with an underage girl is molestation while an older woman with an underage boy is a guy that either hit the jackpot or has "gettin' laid" skills beyond his years. Rather than sympathy for being a victim, the boy gets "Daaaaamn don't you wish you were him."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/pa-teacher-arrested-sex-student-cemetery-article-1.2640268


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-busted-sex-underage-player-article-1.2611738

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...er-aide-accused-sex-student-article-1.2610814


http://articles.philly.com/2016-05-...itutional-sexual-assault-student-monday-night


And more

PervOtaku said:

I've always assumed it's a "man bites dog" effect. Male teachers being sexual predators to their female students is "expected" and not as exciting, the reverse seems novel and exciting and so is instantly promoted to national news.

The other part of it that goes unspoken but everybody knows is the inherent assumption that the male is always the predator and the female is always the prey, so an older guy with an underage girl is molestation while an older woman with an underage boy is a guy that either hit the jackpot or has "gettin' laid" skills beyond his years. Rather than sympathy for being a victim, the boy gets "Daaaaamn don't you wish you were him."

Click to expand...

In general, and this is one of the sadder common untruths - anytime a guy gets sex with a woman in any circumstance it's assumed he's scored. Unless you actually talk to a male rape victim, and I'll admit I never have, it's hard to see raping a male is *possible*. The stereotype is that guys always want it and can hardly be unwilling, so how is it ever rape?

I imagine rape of males is rare but then also vastly unreported, because they can't talk to anyone about it. They'll be offered high fives, not sympathy.

Even in this thread, I don't think anyone's claiming the girl scout leaders, etc did something to make the kids they got their hands on actually unhappy. The claim is they shouldn't have been doing that because it violates the trust model required for a position of authority.

HandsInTheDark said:

I imagine rape of males is rare but then also vastly unreported, because they can't talk to anyone about it. They'll be offered high fives, not sympathy.

Click to expand...

Crime stats are messy; as well as underreporting there are also issues of definition. For the USA you have 50 states, each with its own definition of rape and various related offences.

The FBI runs "Uniform Crime Reporting" stats where US police forces report crimes under a consistent definition, to allow some sort of comparability. (Obviously, only for crimes that are reported to law enforcement.) But until 2012, UCR defined rape as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will". Aside from being unhelpfully vague about what counts as "carnal knowledge", obviously that excludes rape of males altogether.

FBI have finally updated that definition but it's still not great. It defines rape in terms of penetration but it could be read as implying that only the penetrated person can be the victim, so potentially unreliable for things like female-on-male.

Even with a better definition, those stats wouldn't be very good because a lot of crime never gets reported to LE in the first place (for rape/sexual assault, around 7% in the USA). Best practice for estimating the true rates is by surveying, with interviewers trained for talking about sensitive information. (I know a couple of people who did that sort of work, and some of the stuff they hear... not enough soap in the world to wash that off.) In the USA that's the National Crime Victimisation Survey.

Per Slate, [in 2013 NCVS] uncovered that 38 percent of incidents were against men... in years past men had accounted for somewhere between 5 and 14 percent of rape and sexual violence victims

Careful readers will note that "percent of INCIDENTS" and "percent of VICTIMS" aren't measuring the same thing; I haven't had a chance to track down the NCVS numbers so I'm not sure whether this is imprecise language on Slate's part, or an apples-to-oranges comparison. But take it as "lower than female rates, but much higher than many would expect".

Even in this thread, I don't think anyone's claiming the girl scout leaders, etc did something to make the kids they got their hands on actually unhappy. The claim is they shouldn't have been doing that because it violates the trust model required for a position of authority.

Click to expand...

I'd distinguish between "make them unhappy at the time" and "stuff that makes them unhappy in the long term". I've read more than one account from childhood abuse survivors who found the experience pleasurable at the time but were damaged by it afterwards.

sanctimony

I've thought about this a lot. I have a feeling the opposite end of the pendulum is sanctimony or rectitudinal righteousness. My guess is the pendulum swings in those who transgress. The sanctimony of so many institutions is impossible for many to maintain and they swing into the other side as a measure to retain their own sanity. It is pernicious, they wouldn't be aware of it. I suspect it applies to both genders.

I think sanctimony is a terrible thing- it is very difficult to combat and those who use it do so to have control and to justify their cruelty. I see sanctimony in so many places- churches, schools, - any where there are relationships in which the law automatically assumes there is a situation of duress.

I have thought sanctimony has propelled offenders into doing stupid things (I presume it would be a powerful catalyst, eg a wife who constantly harasses her husband with it or vice versa), but it is never mentioned in the media. I know of no research into it. I think it is abuse and closely related to what is the subject of this thread. The teacher over corrects the sanctimony he/ she is expected to adopt, which is not natural to them.

I find this difficult to explain, it's so nebulous. Last year was devoted to fighting the abuse of women in this country. It amazed me that there was no mention of what could cause it . The concentration was on men being the perpetrators. I think the causes are more complicated and blaming men isn't satisfactory when the man is the victim. I wonder if any one else agrees or whether I should shelve my interest in it. As with everyone else I don't know but am asking questions.

Bramblethorn said:

I'd distinguish between "make them unhappy at the time" and "stuff that makes them unhappy in the long term". I've read more than one account from childhood abuse survivors who found the experience pleasurable at the time but were damaged by it afterwards.

Click to expand...

I've spoken to enough abuse victims in the course of just chatting with people online, that I honestly can't draw conclusions anymore. Reactions to rape are all over the map. Some really do just move on and forget about it. Some are emotionally scarred for life and never have meaningful sexual relationship sagain. Some become hypersexual and crave it violent and mean. (caveat, I've known plenty of women with that fetish who were never raped.) I mean that's the problem with sex in general - there's vast amounts of personal variation in how people handle it and want it, so it's difficult to make judgements at all.

My gut says that the response to rape depends more on the victim than the circumstances. Some people are just emotionally tougher than others. But it also depends on the previous relationship between perp and victim. If a casual acquaintance pins you to the dorm room floor and takes what's not offered, you might or might not just be able to move past it (don't wait to find out - get justice and get counseling). If it's a family member - and this is WAY more prevalent than I like to think about - the damage appears to be everlasting. (This is an observation from online conversations over the years - I do not have numbers.) Basically, when positions of authority and trust are abused for sex, the ability to trust gets severely damaged. The girl on the dorm room, pushed by some asshole into something she didn't want, can conceivably report the jerk, learn to lock her door, understand it wasn't her fault, and perhaps move on. The daughter abused by a brother or stepfather can never go home again - even if she lives there. There's no moving on, and virtually no justice. And far more often than not she's not of an age where she can make the kinds of informed choices that the girl in the dorm can.

I think the problem with male rape is it's just so hard to imagine. Most guys can hold most girls down - it's just a question of size and muscle mass. But unless a girl ties a guy up in his sleep, which by the way is rather hard to pull off, how is she going to force the issue? All I can come up with is the family situation, the older sister or mom as perp. And I have problems imagining that's common.

And I'll never know, because the pressure society puts on women to be complicit with their rapists must pale in comparison to what's put on males. No one's going to believe it, no one's going to assume he didn't love it, and if he does step forward, all the girl has to say is "that's not how it happened - he raped me" and she'll be instantly believed. No wonder we have no data.

No one has seemed to mention what I think is an obvious reason for the increase in reporting - sexting leaves a trail of evidence that didn't exist before.

Old days - parent catches a teacher banging his/her 17 year old kid. The parent goes to the cops. The parent has no evidence, just his/her word. Teacher agrees to resign. DA doesn't want to prosecute a case where its one person's word against another's. Besides, the teacher has resigned. If the press gets wind of the story, there isn't much to report. And without a conviction, it seems very unfair to report on it - the unproven accusation would ruin the teacher's reputation.

Today - parent catches a teacher banging his/her 17 year old kid. The parent goes to the cops with the kid's phone which has lots of sexually explicit texts and pics. The press gets wind of it. They know sexually explicit texts and pics in this circumstance are hot as hell and will generate tons of clicks. They give it prominent position on their website. The story is quickly picked up by other websites who want clicks. Bam! A scandal from some small town is now international news.

HandsInTheDark said:

In general, and this is one of the sadder common untruths - anytime a guy gets sex with a woman in any circumstance it's assumed he's scored. Unless you actually talk to a male rape victim, and I'll admit I never have, it's hard to see raping a male is *possible*. The stereotype is that guys always want it and can hardly be unwilling, so how is it ever rape?

I imagine rape of males is rare but then also vastly unreported, because they can't talk to anyone about it. They'll be offered high fives, not sympathy.

Even in this thread, I don't think anyone's claiming the girl scout leaders, etc did something to make the kids they got their hands on actually unhappy. The claim is they shouldn't have been doing that because it violates the trust model required for a position of authority.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, female-on-male rape tends to be mostly along the lines of she drugged him, or starts fucking him while he's asleep, or sometimes some sort of blackmail situation. Female-on-male violent rape doesn't seem to be much of a thing.

Though in the case of teachers and students, we are talking about statutory rape, which generally means the "victim" wasn't physically forced at all, but is underage and therefore legally deemed incapable of making that decision for themselves. (Which we all know is bunk, underage kids fuck each other all the time and in ye olden days of shorter life spans, girls who are underage by today's standards got married all the time.)

We might further subdivide this into two categories. One, the coerced/molested, generally involving much younger children, the old "me touching your private parts is just a secret game" act. Two, these more "high schooler" situations, which probably are mostly horny guys that would fuck any girl or woman that offers, and girls that appreciate the more mature attention that an adult male showers upon them compared to how their male classmates behave.

I don't think anybody is under any illusion that 15, 16, and 17 year old kids fucking their teachers aren't getting everything they want out of that relationship. Although, the male-teacher-female-student scenario is looked at more skeptically since a truly manipulative male is expected to be able to seduce any young girl he wants and be just after the sex rather than actually having feelings for them. Whereas the female-teacher-male-student scenario, it's pretty clear (or generally assumed) that both participants just wanted sex and were both aware of that fact.

It's funny. I've seen reports of lots of these stories. There was a recent one in the UK. I also remember a spate of them in the States, where all the female teachers seemed to be incredibly hot blondes. Of course it's abuse, of course it's a terrible betrayal of a position of trust. But, despite intellectually knowing that it's wrong, part of me always thinks 'God, I wish that had happened to me when I was in school'.

Alexandria Vera, 24, is charged with sexual abuse of a child. The student, age 14, and Vera allegedly began a sexual relationship while Vera was his eighth grade English teacher in summer school last year at Stovall Middle School.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...teacher-wanted-in-connection-with-7955124.php

Abuse? hahahahahahahaha

I saw that today. Pregnant by a 13 yr old.

Wtf???

NOIRTRASH said:

Abuse? hahahahahahahaha

Click to expand...

I wish I'd have been so abused.