Double Standard Anyone?

[amicus]

Watching the news, Fox News of course, wouldn't want to disappoint you...anyway...another lovely blonde female school teacher facing 'decades' in prison for having sex with an underaged male student.

There have been threads of this subject before and as I recall, it was fairly general agreement that the female teachers should be judged under the same laws as the male teachers who had sex with undersage female students.

Rather than lay out all the options, for and against a 'double standard' or at least a different standard concerning females seducing young males, let me offer a different perspective.

There was a new young red-haired English teacher when I was an 8th grader, who's bones I would have jumped in a heart beat had I sensed the opportunity. The concensus opinion of the other young males I knew were in complete agreement, so it wasn't just randy me.

Call me a male Chauvinist pig and I will happily agree.

However, I raised five daughters and three sons, and sure as hell would not want male teachers hittin' on my girl kids. But...I would not feel nearly the same about my boys, assuming it was heterosexual and consential.

I also add, that in years of covering middle and high school sports, both boys and girls, for a newspaper and for a radio station; it seems to me that young people are maturing at a much younger age than when I was in school.

Knowing also the statistics concerning the age at which many become sexually active, late middle school, early high school, perhaps it is time that 'society' took a look at the laws concerning such activities.

This thread is a rather spontaneous one, from the feeling I had as they portrayed this young woman in a court room faced with spending perhaps twenty or more years behind bars.

I didn't like the feeling.

I also cannot comprehend what was in her mind as she considered the act and then carried it out. Surely she was aware of the possible consequences. I doubt very much it was spontaneous on a couch in the nurses room at school; I rather imagine it was well planned and perhaps occured more than once.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think many boys and girls are 'ready' for sex at an age much earlier than that permitted by law.

Is the law a good one as it is; or should it be modified to meet a changing time and if so, why?


amicus...

 

[McKenna]

My grandma was married at 16. She actually wanted to get married at 15, but her parents made her wait until she was 16. She was married in 1927.

I can't, for the life of me, picture a 16 year old of today getting married and staying married for 59 years, as did my Gram. They may develop sexually at the same time or earlier (though I doubt it) but, I think they lack the maturity to make wise decisions about their sexual partners, let alone decisions about the rest of their lives.

Besides, it isn't like in days of yore where "messing around" meant you got married; in today's world, fucking and exploring sexuality are a given, and usually with more than one sexual partner throughout a lifetime. So why rush kids into that? I think that's what the laws are trying to prevent.

As a general rule of thumb, (meaning there are always exceptions, always one or two who don't fit the mold) I would say 18 is a good age for consent.

Besides, if we dropped the legal age of consent to say, 16, I can't imagine what that would do to the porn industry. There are already enough models who are "18" but look like they're 14. If it would be legal to have 16 year olds as porn stars, doesn't it stand to reason they'd start looking for the ones who look 12?!

Ewww.

That just brings up all kinds of horrifying images.

 

[cantdog]

Those horrifying images don't indicate that one ought not act sensibly. 16 is the age in an awful lot of the country. The porn people cut across state lines, so they use 18, but there are plenty of places where 16 is the rule, with parental consent for such youthful marriage. In 1927, people simply expected this of one another. People would be ready, in point of maturity, by sixteen. If there is an expectation of it, people rise to meet those expectations.

We have a grossly extended adolescence in today's culture.

 

[McKenna]

We have a grossly extended adolescence in today's culture.

As evidenced on this board, true enough.

I stand corrected.

 

[cantdog]

Touche.

 

[Guest]

We have a grossly extended adolescence in today's culture.

As evidenced on this board, true enough.

Hey: I resemble that remark.

 

[SeaCat]

Amicus,

I believe, and I may be wrong, that the age of consent laws were put into place not to stop the kids from having sex but to prevent coercion of minors by adults. For example a coach forcing a kid to have sex with him/her to get onto the team. I may not neccasarily agree with the age of consent but I do agree with this idea, if it was truly the idea behind the laws.

Cat

 

[CharleyH]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think many boys and girls are 'ready' for sex at an age much earlier than that permitted by law.

Is the law a good one as it is; or should it be modified to meet a changing time and if so, why?


amicus...

GOOD GOD, who I do not believe in - I agree with you on this. I am not ashamed to say I had sex at 14, I also say I HATED IT. States are different and one must ask why the sue or charge? PARENTS? Or a broken heart? At that age? WHATEVER TO me. To you Amicus I ask ... if you were fucked at that age? How would you feel? FEEL!

Then re-ask is the law a good one?

 

[R. Richard]

A child might decide to have sex, probably with another chiid. That is fairly normal and fairly frequent [although you can't write about it here in Literotica].

A child who "decides" to have sex with an adult is all to often maneuvered into the sex by the adult. This is a main reason why there are age of consent laws.

However, a teacher or coach who has sex with anyone who is under 21 and under their control is IMHO way out of line and should be severely punished. The teacher controls the kid's grade. The kid is no more than the teacher's slave.

 

[SeaCat]

A child might decide to have sex, probably with another chiid. That is fairly normal and fairly frequent [although you can't write about it here in Literotica].

A child who "decides" to have sex with an adult is all to often maneuvered into the sex by the adult. This is a main reason why there are age of consent laws.

However, a teacher or coach who has sex with anyone who is under 21 and under their control is IMHO way out of line and should be severely punished. The teacher controls the kid's grade. The kid is no more than the teacher's slave.

Agreed,

Cat

 

[LadyJeanne]

Every time this issue about female teachers having sex with boys (and this one was 14, for the record), I want to ask the question: WTF could she possibly find sexy about an adolescent boy? Ick.

Amicus, kids may be physically 'ready' to have sex these days at a younger age, and they may even believe they are emotionally and intellectually 'ready' to have sex, but they are wrong. Boys were just as horny as you were back in the day, no more, no less. Girls are also horny, but they are typically emotionally needy as well - sex and feelings are a package deal with girls. They are going to have sex with each other no matter what the age of consent is; the vast majority of those who do so never end up in litigation even though they may both be under the age of consent.

I don't advocate changing the age of consent laws because they are primarily designed to protect kids from predatory adults. Teachers, and other adults in authority positions over kids, should not be allowed to have sex with them under any circumstances, even if they are over the age of consent. It's an abuse of power and kids can't handle it. It's hard enough to deal with sexual harrassment in the workplace where, presumably, all parties are adults.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Every time this issue about female teachers having sex with boys (and this one was 14, for the record), I want to ask the question: WTF could she possibly find sexy about an adolescent boy? Ick.

Amicus, kids may be physically 'ready' to have sex these days at a younger age, and they may even believe they are emotionally and intellectually 'ready' to have sex, but they are wrong. Boys were just as horny as you were back in the day, no more, no less. Girls are also horny, but they are typically emotionally needy as well - sex and feelings are a package deal with girls. They are going to have sex with each other no matter what the age of consent is; the vast majority of those who do so never end up in litigation even though they may both be under the age of consent.

I don't advocate changing the age of consent laws because they are primarily designed to protect kids from predatory adults. Teachers, and other adults in authority positions over kids, should not be allowed to have sex with them under any circumstances, even if they are over the age of consent. It's an abuse of power and kids can't handle it. It's hard enough to deal with sexual harrassment in the workplace where, presumably, all parties are adults.

Ditto and Ditto RR.

 

[cantdog]

Power is the problem. It is the sex coerced which is the crime. Or should be. The laws are blunt instruments. To use them to resolve these issues is like de-boning a chicken with welding gloves on, using a butter knife.

Laws are so amateurish, sometimes. They can never encompass existence.

 

[CharleyH]

Power is the problem. It is the sex coerced which is the crime. Or should be. The laws are blunt instruments. To use them to resolve these issues is like de-boning a chicken with welding gloves on, using a butter knife.

Laws are so amateurish, sometimes. They can never encompass existence.

what are your laws?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Power is the problem. It is the sex coerced which is the crime. Or should be. The laws are blunt instruments. To use them to resolve these issues is like de-boning a chicken with welding gloves on, using a butter knife.

Laws are so amateurish, sometimes. They can never encompass existence.

Well see, age is a temporary problem, unlike homosexuality or other forms of love. If you love someone today who is too young, they will eventually become legal age, no problems, have fun.

If both parties are underaged and playing with sex, the law couldn't care less and beside the various "tell all" reports about how "today's kids are so much more promiscuous than we were" no one of import cares. And if they love each other, they can wait until they are old enough to wed. A relationship that can't wait three years or so to marry won't last a lifetime.

The same can be said of older-younger pairs. If the older party is unwilling to wait on physical pleasure until the younger party is old enough isn't in love with them and has no right toying with them for lolita sex. The ones who can wait will get the funny stares but can possibly prove themselves.

The age of consent is fine because it teaches kids the meaning of time, emotion, love, and what sex really means and entails. Adults manipulating kid's desire to grow up or validate their 40 year old souls and cynicism for cheap sex, who have no desire to set up a long term relationship, really have no place in the equation.

But that might just be a personal opinion.

 

[cantdog]

One of the great revelations of existence is the moment when you realize that there really are no rules. This despite so many laws no one can possibly even know them all. They say ignorance of the law excuses nothing, but damn, there are so many, we are always in infraction whether we intend it or not.

But in the end, it is power and money, and personal authority, the ancient system, which determine crime and punishment, and which define the limits of our lives. The powerful man need not fear the law, and the poor man will find it twisted upon itself in order to torment him.

The poor and the black are on death row, the rich defraud billions and live on their golden parachutes. Corporations are structured specifically to maximize clout while limiting liability. Serial killers get fan mail and the other trappings of celebrity. No, laws are flouted every day. Police enforce them differentially depending on income and influence.

Government itself is an illusion, and can be ducked in most cases without a lot of effort. How many people do you know who have never smoked dope? Are all of them under six?

My laws are my own, self-generated, guides to my own existence. And I submit that I am not so different from anyone else in this, whether they are duped into believing in the rule of law or not. If the system of laws meant what it seems to say, it might provoke me to care more about tweaking the laws. But it is nearly shameless in its pandering to authority, and so worthy of no one's respect.

I have only my own morality against the void. As you come to know me, you will see it revealed. It is far from perfect, and often made to reform itself.

 

[amicus]

Lady Jeanne....et al....

..."...Every time this issue about female teachers having sex with boys (and this one was 14, for the record), I want to ask the question: WTF could she possibly find sexy about an adolescent boy? Ick...."

Yes, and the lady teacher in mind, Debra Lefave, is 24 and married, if I heard the news item correctly.

From a male point of view, introducing a young female to sexual experience must have some attraction as men regularly marry women much younger than themselves.

And it seems that the objects of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet were very young; and it was not that long ago in this country when girls were married off to older and even old men as a matter of arranged marriages, which still happens in many part of the 'civilized' world.

But back to your quoted statement above...is it possible she found that same thing, introduction to sex, an exhilerating experience for herself?

As an incidental, I do not view Literotica as a 'Porn' site, perhaps because I limit my reading to certain sections and also as I view Pornography as a denigration of sex while I see Erotica as merely more explicit, but then, that is just my view.

So many things come to mind...Geisha's, where young girls are sold by their families, into service. And that is not unusual in many places around the world.

The sex trade in the far east and south america, it seems the younger the better in the brothels and I suspect it has always been that way.

I repeat again....that is was just a feeling as I watched this very attractive blue eyed blonde in the court room, a college graduate, a teacher, a married woman without a wrinkle on her pretty face, looking at 20 years in prison and I still ask why.

We have the word 'seduction' in our language and it has a meaning. It is not an oft used word in this time of feminine independence as the word suggests a female susceptibility and pliablility.

I think there is more to this than is being discussed. Among my daughters and grand daughters there have been 'daddies girls', those little imps who somehow knew at a very early age how to get what they wanted with a smile, a glance and a hug.

I have known a couple ladies in my days and I can usually pick out the 'daddies girls' early on.

I do not judge it as an entirely bad thing that some girls and women use their 'charms' to get what they want in this world.

I for one, personally, do not see what this teacher did, as a crime serious enough to warrant twenty years in prison.

On the other hand, had it been a male teacher and a female 14 year old, I might have throw away the key, even though the male teacher may well have been seduced himself by a 'daddies girl' type young lady.

I have some contradictions in my thoughts which I never have when I present an argument on any forum I participate in. Thas why I mentioned 'double standard', which has not really been addressed.

In raising children, it has been pointed out to me that I was much more strict and unforgiving with my male children.

I am sure someone will find a place to criticize that and my obvious contradictions in a double standard.

Have at it.


amicus...

 

[McKenna]

We have the word 'seduction' in our language and it has a meaning. It is not an oft used word in this time of feminine independence as the word suggests a female susceptibility and pliablility.

Heh? "Seduction" suggests female susceptivility and pliability? Pfffft. Bollocks. I think "seduction", the word, means far more than the feminine slant you've put on it. I think it means one person cajoling another be it by words, actions, or even a subtle glance. I think men have just as much power to seduce as women. When one is "seduced" they are coaxed and tempted into giving in to some desire that perhaps they shouldn't. That's one thing that is NOT gender specific. Hell, our nation was seduced rather easily into war. If that's not a traditionally masculine pursuit, I don't know what is. Are you suggesting our nation is nothing but a bunch of simpering, feminine pussies, easily cajoled? Susceptible to seduction and pliable to our government's desires?

I for one, personally, do not see what this teacher did, as a crime serious enough to warrant twenty years in prison.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose. Gender shouldn't matter. What does matter is their actions, which were irresponsible at least, reprehensible and appaling at most.

On the other hand, had it been a male teacher and a female 14 year old, I might have throw away the key, even though the male teacher may well have been seduced himself by a 'daddies girl' type young lady.

Christ Amicus, it sounds like you're blaming some jackass's lack of rationality on some 14 year old. Like it's her fault he can't think with anything besides his dick?! Even if she were playing at an adult game of seduction, HE, the adult, can easily choose NOT to play, thus separating him (the adult) from adolescent behavior. Imagine that.

 

[amicus]

Ah, McKenna, you've never had a yardon a hard long and sought only relief.

and yes...seduction, to seduce...seductive also means, 'captivating' and I agree it is not a gender specific word, but it surely is a gender specific style that changes to meet the gender involved and the situation encountered.

Now, you, I would not try to seduce with candy or liquor, nor even with promised riches (although I would have to know more), in my travels, the seduction of a sharp female mind requires precise methodology.

I would have to take pains to discover your basic principles, probe to see how well you defended them and then tear them apart, one by one until you were left a quivering mass of contradictions.

At that point, since I never enjoyed the conquest of a quivering mass, I would most likely leave and wait for your call.

and...you would call.


amicus...


( I know...just think the nasty reply, don't type it, others will read)

edited to add: my 176 IQ friend in Canada, also goes 'phhttts' when she is perturbed at me...

 

[McKenna]

Now, you, I would not try to seduce with candy or liquor, nor even with promised riches (although I would have to know more), in my travels, the seduction of a sharp female mind requires precise methodology.

I would have to take pains to discover your basic principles, probe to see how well you defended them and then tear them apart, one by one until you were left a quivering mass of contradictions.

At that point, since I never enjoyed the conquest of a quivering mass, I would most likely leave and wait for your call.

and...you would call.

It'd never happen Amicus. If for no other reason than I need someone who is at least as intelligent as I am, if not more so; seduction begins in the mind.

Men like you are too intimidated by women like me. Now go play. That's a good boy.

 

[amicus]

The last thing you want, McKenna, is some one as intelligent as you or more so, and I suspect my points are about 20 over yours.

Go find yourself a stable boy named heathcliff....or sumpin....

 

[Dar~]

The last thing you want, McKenna, is some one as intelligent as you or more so, and I suspect my points are about 20 over yours.

Go find yourself a stable boy named heathcliff....or sumpin....

Well, I do believe McKenna wants someone who has a healthy view of himself in relation to the world, and you, Amicus, certainly do not offer that. You aren't the god of all things logical. You rarely make sense except to your reflection and are hardly a speck on the picture of validated life forms.

 

[McKenna]

The last thing you want, McKenna, is some one as intelligent as you or more so, and I suspect my points are about 20 over yours.

Go find yourself a stable boy named heathcliff....or sumpin....

If your "intelligence" is what you've demonstrated here, you're definitely deluded if you think you'll ever be in the running to kiss my ass, let alone anything else.

Glad to know I touched a nerve, though.

My work here is done.

 

[amicus]

as a boy, I was intimidated by the quick repartee of girls who knew they would suffer no physical response for nasty words which would have led to a fight between boys.

Your parting words might have been better served had they been 'teehee' as you ran away, wiggling your ample ass.

amicus...

 

[Dar~]

OOOoooo McKenna, I think he called your booty ample.