Female teachers, student sex....

[amicus]

A question for the 'fair' sex...

Over the past couple of years there have been several well publicized cases (perhaps many more) of young attractive female school teachers having sex with young male students.

Why?

Now I can understand the erotic male interest in young girls, introducing a young person to sexual experience is erotic, it is fantasy, for most, and forbidden and protected.

But why the woman teacher and the young boy?

I have had a lengthy conversation about this very issue, but I am left with a lack of comprehension as to what the 'real' motive may be.

Any ideas?



a curious amicus...

 

[fille]

Well, I don't really understand either one, but why wouldn't your rationale about the older man/young female student apply to the reverse situation just as well?

 

[brightlyiburn]

I don't really see the appeal but...
Well, think about it. For one thing, younger people in general haven't developed the same sort of habits older people have. So I imagine there is appeal in that a young boy may be easier to teach good manners and such. The whole idea of "training". Whether or not that works, who knows?

I think it's really the same as any other 'why'. I'm sure those teachers ask themselves the same questions. You could come up with a hundred theories and most likely never know for sure.

 

[amicus]

Well, Fille.... I am certain it is old fashioned, and politically incorrect, but there seems to be a do'ee and a do'er, in terms of sex, only one (caveat) has a penis.

I do not see making love to, and being made love to, as one and the same thing.

I would suggest that ravish, conquer, dominate, overwhelm, take, is somewhat of a male prerogative.

While to be ravished, conquered, dominated, overwhelmed, taken, is somewhat of a female perspective.

But then, I could be wrong...


amicus...

 

[fille]

Well, Fille.... I am certain it is old fashioned, and politically incorrect, but there seems to be a do'ee and a do'er, in terms of sex, only one (caveat) has a penis.

I do not see making love to, and being made love to, as one and the same thing.

I would suggest that ravish, conquer, dominate, overwhelm, take, is somewhat of a male prerogative.

While to be ravished, conquered, dominated, overwhelmed, taken, is somewhat of a female perspective.

But then, I could be wrong...


amicus...

Hmmmm. Perhaps you better visit some of the BDSM threads. I think there are plenty of folks there (both genders) who don't share your perspective.

 

[R. Richard]

I think maybe I know the answer.

Let me start with some background, perhaps addressing Fille's question.

I consider myself a reasonably normal adult male. I have never had any interest in having sex with or viewing nude pictures of, say, a six year old girl. I have seen 15 year old beach babes where I was very interested in having sex, save for two problems: a) 15 will get you 20; b) there were a lot of other normal, adult males in line ahead of me.

The reason I would think that an adult female would want to have sex with a 15 year old boy would be several: a) a lot of 15 year old boys are trim and muscular, but not muscular to the extent that an adult male would be (safety); b) an adult female can control a 15 year old boy with ease, however she cannot control an adult male with ease (control, safety). c) a 15 year old boy is always ready, not so with some adult wimp boys (convenience). Another possible reason is that a female of adult years is seeking someone on her intellectual level.

JMHO.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Well, Fille.... I am certain it is old fashioned, and politically incorrect, but there seems to be a do'ee and a do'er, in terms of sex, only one (caveat) has a penis.

I do not see making love to, and being made love to, as one and the same thing.

I would suggest that ravish, conquer, dominate, overwhelm, take, is somewhat of a male prerogative.

While to be ravished, conquered, dominated, overwhelmed, taken, is somewhat of a female perspective.

But then, I could be wrong...


amicus...

Not necessarily true, and sex doesn't have to be about any of those things anyway.

I'm guessing the ladies in question are a nurturing, let me teach you how it's done right type, almost maternal, as may have been their sexual adventures.

 

[amicus]

I was speaking mainstream, Fille...not aberrations, kinky sex is ageless, to each his/her own.

I think if you research Bondage and Sadomasochism, you will find it defined as a disturbed personality condition marked by the presence of both sadistic and masochistic traits.

Plain old Sadism is defined as sexual gratification gained through causing physical pain and humiliation, enjoyment in being cruel.

Now, that may turn you on, but it turns my stomache.

It is okay if you cannot address my question without a personal attack. I expect that here.





amicus...

 

[cantdog]

There are plenty who don't share any given perspective. Maybe it's the golden glowy skin tone of the young. Maybe anything. People do not have a lot of frank interaction with one another about sex, and it is consequently filled with people who are self-taught and into very singular trips about it.

Kinks of some kind are common as fleas. Everyone seems to have one. Broad agreement, as on the BDSM boards, is probably artificial, too. There are a lot of conventional approaches that people espouse publicly but twist into new forms in the actual acts. Endless variation.

 

[amicus]

Lady Jeanne...

"...I'm guessing the ladies in question are a nurturing, let me teach you how it's done right type, almost maternal, as may have been their sexual adventures...."


Interesting theory. How would they choose the student? How would they take the risk?

I am truly at a loss to understand the depth of the phenomenon, thank you...

 

[brightlyiburn]

I was speaking mainstream, Fille...not aberrations, kinky sex is ageless, to each his/her own.

I think if you research Bondage and Sadomasochism, you will find it defined as a disturbed personality condition marked by the presence of both sadistic and masochistic traits.

Plain old Sadism is defined as sexual gratification gained through causing physical pain and humiliation, enjoyment in being cruel.

Now, that may turn you on, but it turns my stomache.

It is okay if you cannot address my question without a personal attack. I expect that here.





amicus...

Did I miss something? I don't see how that's a personal attack. All she said is that she thought there were people who didn't share your perspective.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Lady Jeanne...

"...I'm guessing the ladies in question are a nurturing, let me teach you how it's done right type, almost maternal, as may have been their sexual adventures...."


Interesting theory. How would they choose the student? How would they take the risk?

I am truly at a loss to understand the depth of the phenomenon, thank you...

I've no idea, ami. None of it makes any sense to me. But, ok, I'll play.

Why would any teenage boy be interested in an older woman, a teacher? Sex and validation, yes? So she'd be likely to notice an awkward, lonely, horny boy with possible mommy issues who hangs around and blushes a lot when she's kind to him. The risk would be taken in increments as some kind of friendly, trusting relationship develops, moving further into risky territory each time.

 

[amicus]

Yes, Brightlyiburn, you missed something...


"...Hmmmm. Perhaps you better visit some of the BDSM threads. I think there are plenty of folks there (both genders) who don't share your perspective...."

That was the comment that elicited my response, that reply had nothing to do with the subject, but a suggestion that "I" visit a BDSM thread. Which is a subjective reply and not an objective reply to the subject at hand.

Or is that over your head?


amicus...

 

[fille]

It is okay if you cannot address my question without a personal attack. I expect that here.





amicus...

If you consider that an attack, you aren't going to have much fun around here. I am not one of the resident attack dogs, but there certainly are plenty of them around.

And now that you have advised that they are disturbed and turn your stomach, you may hear from them.

I'm not actually into BDSM much myself, but many people are. I don't think they are all disturbed.

 

[brightlyiburn]

Yes, Brightlyiburn, you missed something...


"...Hmmmm. Perhaps you better visit some of the BDSM threads. I think there are plenty of folks there (both genders) who don't share your perspective...."

That was the comment that elicited my response, that reply had nothing to do with the subject, but a suggestion that "I" visit a BDSM thread. Which is a subjective reply and not an objective reply to the subject at hand.

Or is that over your head?


amicus...

I guess so, cause that really doesn't explain how it was a personal attack on you. In fact, sounded like a valid suggestion to me. Maybe you ought to take it.

 

[KarenAM]

Well, Fille.... I am certain it is old fashioned, and politically incorrect, but there seems to be a do'ee and a do'er, in terms of sex, only one (caveat) has a penis.

I do not see making love to, and being made love to, as one and the same thing.

I would suggest that ravish, conquer, dominate, overwhelm, take, is somewhat of a male prerogative.

While to be ravished, conquered, dominated, overwhelmed, taken, is somewhat of a female perspective.

But then, I could be wrong...


amicus...

It's hard to say, really. The mechanics of heterosexual sex do often (but not always) involve penetration of the woman by the man, and this has often been seen as the male "doing" sex to the female. But I'm not sure this can be applied to every sex act possible between a man and a woman. With a blowjob, for example, the man could be seen as making himself vulnerable to the woman by putting a very sensitive part of his anatomy into a part of her anatomy that is designed to tear up flesh. Who is the dominant partner then? Who is "doing" who?

So while there is no doubt but that some heterosexual relationships are based on male dominant/female submissive views, I don't think we can really say that all of them are, or that this is a basic feature of human sexuality. I think humans are more sexually complex than that.

All this, of course, assumes adult consent, and the issue of older female/underage male sex that has come up in the news lately deals with one partner who, by the law, is unable to give such consent as an adult. I read in the New Yorker recently that studies have shown that adolescent males who are seduced by older women are on average less traumatized in the long run than, say, girls who are molested by their fathers, but while this may be true, I have known men who were seduced by older women when they were teenagers and I could see that the experience marked many of them in negative ways.

The most severe problem seems to be the fact that these boys are frequently manipulated by the older woman, who may well have emotional problems of her own. In such a case the boy becomes the recipient of the woman's emotional problems at a time when he is still dealing with his own issues of adolescence (which in American society can be quite difficult). As well, I wonder if the boys sought out by these women are sought out precisely because they are vulnerable emotionally for other reasons (trouble at home or with peers, broken families, abuse, etc.) and want and need the positive attention of an adult. In such a case there is the danger that the older woman will be percieved as the "perfect" woman and will take on the role of mentoring the boy, even though her interests are not in helping him grow but in having sex with him for her own reasons. The result may be that all other women, particularly those who are the boy's age, will be forever inadequete (in his mind, at least) afterward. He won't learn the basic human relationship skills that all young people need to learn. While this isn't the same trauma as father-daughter incest, it can still present problems later in life.

Now, this is speculation based on a magazine article and a limited number of observations of men I know who had this happen. I'm not an expert, so I'll yeild the floor happily to those who are.

 

[amicus]

LadyJeanne, again...a perspective...thank you..


"...I've no idea, ami. None of it makes any sense to me. But, ok, I'll play.

Why would any teenage boy be interested in an older woman, a teacher? Sex and validation, yes? So she'd be likely to notice an awkward, lonely, horny boy with possible mommy issues who hangs around and blushes a lot when she's kind to him. The risk would be taken in increments as some kind of friendly, trusting relationship develops, moving further into risky territory each time...."



Well, yes, I had a crush on a red haired english teacher at about age 14...she was gorgeous...and I was possibly an awkward, lonely and surely horny boy....so yes...very interesting...

And yes, I think the incremental risk factor plays a part, good thinking...


amicus...

 

[yui]

I personally cannot imagine what would make a female teacher become physically involved with a 14 or 15 year-old boy. Beyond the abuse of trust issues, I just can't mentally put myself in that position. However, as someone who seems to attract teenage boys for whatever reason (personally I blame anime ), there is certainly an appeal in the simple adoration they offer. I have never found myself attracted to any of them on a sexual level, and I can't fathom what I would have in common with them on the whole, but the absolute intensity and conviction they can have in your wonderfulness could, I think, appeal to some women on a very fundamental level.

I think the same mentality can sometimes be true of men with Lolita Complexes.

Luck,

Yui

 

[amicus]

Thanks Yui...another puzzle piece...


amicus...

 

[SweetShyNSexy]

Maybe it's the same... I mean, it's not like the innocent last forever...Men are interested in young girls, women can be interested in young boys...Can't they? As erotic as it may be, I honestly think it's fine, as long as it's not right. If the boy agreed then there's no problem. If he didn't, then it must've been temporary insanity. hehe, honestly I can't give you the real answer but maybe a theory or two.

love you hehe <3 -lil princess-

 

[Xelebes]

Yes, Brightlyiburn, you missed something...


"...Hmmmm. Perhaps you better visit some of the BDSM threads. I think there are plenty of folks there (both genders) who don't share your perspective...."

That was the comment that elicited my response, that reply had nothing to do with the subject, but a suggestion that "I" visit a BDSM thread. Which is a subjective reply and not an objective reply to the subject at hand.

Or is that over your head?


amicus...

You seem to gloss over the D/s part of the BDSM. You're focusing on the B/d and S/m too much. The Dominance/submission side is probably the biggest draw in the BDSM forums (and possibly it's downfall - which ever you look at it after a prolonged absorption of the community there.)

Anyways, the D/s aspect is probably crucial to the whole relationship occuring.

 

[amicus]

KarenAm....

Again, you offer insights outside my experience, thank you.

I am beginning to see that there could be many reasons and seemingly, none of them good ones.

I realize you and I have differences and I do not wish to dwell on them, but the first part of your post, in my mind, points out the exceptions, not the general rule.

Human sexuality is/was determined by nature to continue the species and that determines the nature of the act.

Male fish fertilize the eggs laid by the female by swimming over and depositing sperm. Not a sharing experience, but as orgasm is gratifying, I suppose it qualifies.

The human condition is somewhat different and I know you know that.

But I do not wish to argue with you.

Thank you for your input.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Xelebes....thank you...


"...You seem to gloss over the D/s part of the BDSM. You're focusing on the B/d and S/m too much. The Dominance/submission side is probably the biggest draw in the BDSM forums (and possibly it's downfall - which ever you look at it after a prolonged absorption of the community there...."


I must confess I have never visited the BDSM writes, I seldom read erotica, I just write it. smiles...

and I would have had no comment on BDSM at all had it not been for someone suggesting I should visit.

and the definitions I offered were not my opinion, but verbatim out of my Random House dictionary... not that it matters...



amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, Fille.... I am certain it is old fashioned, and politically incorrect, but there seems to be a do'ee and a do'er, in terms of sex, only one (caveat) has a penis.

I do not see making love to, and being made love to, as one and the same thing.

I would suggest that ravish, conquer, dominate, overwhelm, take, is somewhat of a male prerogative.

While to be ravished, conquered, dominated, overwhelmed, taken, is somewhat of a female perspective.

But then, I could be wrong...


amicus...

Personally, I have made love with some women; I have had sex with some women and I have even fucked some women but I have never ravished, conquered, dominated, overwhelmed or taken anybody and I never will.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think R. Richard nailed it. I think most people aiming much lower in years are looking for someone easier to control.

Shanglan