Should adult females, who have relations with underage males be punished?

[Smith_3]

With all the cases of female high school teachers having relationships with their students, and some cases resulting in ridiculusly high criminal charges, one has to wonder: is the whole issue of adult females having relations with underage males completely overblown?

Don't get me wrong. I simply think the situation is a totally different one, than if the genders were reversed.

I, being an adult male, remember quite clearly that I first started having sexual interest in adult females at the age of about nine or ten. And I also remember quite clearly, that the other boys I knew had rather similar ideas. We also used a language, remarkably similar to the typical South Park episode (long before that show was ever created), when no adults were watching, and all of us turned out rather well later (college degrees, no criminal records etc.). Now, I know that my parents probably wouldn't have approved, but I seriously doubt that my developing psyche would have been severly damaged by a sexual encounter with an adult female during my teenages. Is it just me? I don't understand were all this hysteria comes from with regard to this topic. Is it adult women with a totaly misunderstanding of how the adolescent male ticks? Or is it adult males who feel somehow threatened by a perceived "competition"? I don't get it? Is it just me, or do others understand what I'm trying to say?

[Bunny]

1. Bullshit.

Your childish fantasy notwithstanding, sex with children is wrong, no matter who is doing it, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

[Smith_3]

2. Its not my fantasy. Its a call for objective analysis. eom

[Toots]

9. I doubt you will find any boys/men that feel they have been harmed in ANY manner

Girls on the other hand do feel that way...

[Maddy McCall]

43. Oh geez.

:eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

46. Boys feel that way, too, but they aren't as apt to talk about it immediately.

But the problems caused by the molestation DO eventually surface.

"A boy is likely, with a female teacher, to claim that it wasn't a problem, it wasn't molestation, it wasn't abuse, he wasn't hurt by it," said Richard Gartner, a New York psychologist and author of Beyond Betrayal: Taking Charge of Your Life After Boyhood Sexual Abuse. Recognition of the damage doesn't usually occur until the man is in his 30s, 40s or later, he said.

That damage varies widely, depending on the victim's age, the abuse itself, the sexual orientation of the boy and of the abuser, Gartner said. Victims often report addictive behavior and compulsive disorders, from gambling to sex to substance abuse, he said.

Boy or girl, victims often end up with relationships framed in terms of power and control, not affection.

But boys' pain is overlooked. "In our society, we're socialized to think that men aren't victims, that that's the province of women," Gartner said. "To say that you are a victim and particularly a sexual victim, for many boys and men, is to say that you're not entirely a man."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-21-abusegender_N.htm

[book_worm]

67. wrong, I know a person who has a 13 year old son who was sexually abused by a

25 year old woman (a neighbor) and he's pretty messed up over it. This nonsensce that it's something guys would welcome but not girls is sexist and stupid.

[RiverStone]

116. Look at this list of women pedophiles...and tell me there has been no harm

A predator is a predator.

A pedophile is a pedophile.

Both are on exhibit here:

http://crime.about.com/od/sex/ig/female_pedophiles/

There should be no double standard which somehow minimizes a woman's abuse of a boy or a girl vs a man's. Having worked many years in education, I can tell you with 100% certainty that most sexual crimes against kids leaves emotional scars that can mess with them and their family for generations. Many abused kids grow up to become abusers themselves.

Did you not consider that as a result of this crime, the victims are far more likely to victimize kids down the road?

It matters not what the offender looks like - ya sexually abuse a kid - ya deserve to be labeled, charged, treated, and punished as a child abuser. No exceptions!

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. Adults can make decisions based on reasoned thought and choice

and understanding consequences. Children, especially young children cannot. Boys are driven by hormones and not by thought--but may be emotionally manipulated, and mentally damaged because of these adult/child relationships.

It is not about sex. It is about power and control and manipulation.

[blondeatlast]

32. Very well put; that's the heart of the matter. nt

[Maddy McCall]

42. What she said.

[JackRiddler]

79. Bullshit bullshit.

Especially the use of the incendiary turn-off-your-brain term "children."

If a 20-plus-female has consenting sex with a 16-year-old male, he is a "child" in many states and it is therefore a "crime." And you think society (or he) is served by locking her up for a few years and then putting her on the lynchmob list (oh, sorry, "sexual offenders registry.")

[blogslut]

3. Underage is underage

Regardless of gender. Taking advantage of immaturity is taking advantage of immaturity. There is an enormous difference between fantasy and reality. Fantasy means no harm is done and all scenarios happen as planned. Reality means that emotions are played upon, unplanned consequences happen and lives are forever changed. Learn the difference.

[zanne]

27. I agree, blogslut.

But I think you deserve a nicer username.

[blogslut]

37. sorry

I like it. I own it. I am what I am.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. And the reality is that boys ARE harmed by relationships with grown women

Any adult who engages in sex with a minor is violating boudaries. Particularly if she is in a position of authority, like a teacher. Years ago I read an article by a therapist (I wish I could remember the publication but it was a long time ago) who was working with a famous male actor. He was having serious trouble forming healthy relationships. He disclosed that he'd lost his virginity at age 12 to an 18 year old babysitter. He refused to acknowledge that this had harmed him in any way. Which is understandable considering the mythology that most people internalize about this stuff. According to the therapist, he showed the exact same characteristics of her female clients who had been sexually abused as girls by grown men. The exact same.

[JackRiddler]

80. Damn him!

How dare he refuse to acknowledge what the therapist can see. Great example.

Next.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

85. I guess you're okay with MALE teachers seducing young boys too, right? nt

[JackRiddler]

89. Nope.

On this score I'm an old time sexist, I guess. I am readier to excuse female teachers with consenting students than I ever would male adults with anyone else.

I don't want to condone it and I'm not "okay with it," by the way: I just see that criminal justice as a solution is mostly worse than the original sin.

Also, I think you can admit there are some plainly insane aspects to consent laws (such as that 17 with 15 is legal, but on the day of the 18th b-day the same person is suddenly liable to years of imprisonment).

[mrreowwr_kittty]

95. Really? What if the male student is consenting to the male teacher?

You're not just sexist, you're hetero-sexist.

[hack89]

101. Well said. nt

[rAVES]

4. Sex is dirty.

[rateyes]

10. Sex is dirty....therefore,

you should save it for the one you love! :evilgrin:

[Guaranteed]

58. Well, as Woody Allen said, it is if it's done right. nt

[Bright Eyes]

5. Do you believe that men who have sex with underage girls shouldn't be punished?

Women fought hard for equality under the law, whether it be benefits or punishment.

[Smith_3]

6. No. I believe they should be punished.

And there is a difference between equality and identity. To put it in Steven Pinker's words "Man and Woman are equal. Man and Woman are not clones."

[Bright Eyes]

7. Thats like saying men shouldn't be charged with spousal abuse

because testosterone causes aggression.

Being an adult means learning self-control.

Just for funsies, do you feel the same if a male teacher had (consensual) sex with a underage male student?

[theHandpuppet]

34. Excellent Point, Bright Eyes

If underage boys are fair game for adults, including female teachers, then shouldn't they be fair game for adult men, even priests?

Your question is a fair one but I doubt you'll get an answer -- you're being much too logical here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. The Evo-Psych brigade usually won't go that far

What they will do, is suggest that because men can't control their genetically hardwired aggression, the onus is on women to exercise caution around them. That way everything is the woman's fault, just like always!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. Steven Pinker is a fucking chauvinistic asshole.

Before you even respond: Yes, I've read some of his stuff. No, I'm not interested in debating the merits of his "research" with you, so don't bother.

[LanternWaste]

64. the precise and relevant difference...

Then what is the precise and relevant difference that would allow (in your world) women to remain innocent while men go to prison for the exact same crime?

The precise and relevant difference... because mere defintions and bumper sticker philosophies don't cut in an analytical and sincere discussion as you're trying to have. So think about. If you can think of what this (these) precise and relevant moral difference is, I'd love to hear it.

[Boojatta]

35. How many women fought hard for military draft equality?

Would it be wise for someone who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination to put one of the following at the top of his or her agenda?

1 A constitutional amendment banning military conscription regardless of circumstances.

2 A constitutional amendment that would make military conscription more like qualifying for a job as a firefighter.

[Bright Eyes]

47. They should absolutely get rid of SS.

But I'm not quite sure what your point is....

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. It's women's fault that men draft other men.

No issues that women face can be addressed until feminism first resolves every problem that men face. It's all about Teh Menz, didn't you know? And apparently they are incapable of organizing and working to solve their own problems.

This is nothing, though. I actually had a guy on a message board tell me that it was the fault of the women's movement that men get raped in jail. Seriously. Why? Because feminists weren't doing enough to stop men getting raped in jail.

[Boojatta]

56. I have a sneaking suspicion that you didn't like my previous post.

It's women's fault that men draft other men.

The major fault is connected with specific decisions made by particular individuals who have had political power. Do you think that the gender of those individuals matters? (*see below) More broadly, the fault is with voters.

No issues that women face can be addressed until feminism first resolves every problem that men face.

Perhaps you didn't notice the thread title or the fact that this thread is in GD? I don't know why you're referring to feminism. If you're trying to read minds, then you're not doing well.

I'm still wondering.

Would it be wise for someone who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination to put one of the following at the top of his or her agenda?

1 A constitutional amendment banning military conscription regardless of circumstances.

2 A constitutional amendment that would make military conscription more like qualifying for a job as a firefighter.

* I would think that if men were murdering other men and donating the organs of those other men to people who need organs, then we would have a problem on our hands that should concern both men and women. Of course, you are entitled to express vehement disagreement if you wish. Do you think that as a white man, GWB should instruct police forces to not use resources to deal with crimes committed against African Americans by other African Americans?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. You were responding to a post about the equality that women had fought to acheive

That would be the result of the women's movement. Those who fight for equality of women as part of the women's movement are known as feminists. That is why I referred to feminism and it was perfectly reasonable for me to do so.

As for what you call "draft equity" maybe feminists haven't devoted much time to that. Sorry, but ensuring that women can be conscripted to feed the patriarchal military-industrial war machine isn't real high on the priorities of most feminists. A lot of us kinda oppose the whole thing, you know. Perhaps the men for whom the unfairness of the draft and SS is such a major problem could possibly get off their butts and agitate to get it changed themselves, instead of bemoaning the lack of women who are taking up that cause.

If men were murdering other men to steal their organs, it would most definitely be a problem of both genders. However, I wouldn't think that the solution to the problem would be having women also be murdered in order to acheive "fairness". The murders should stop, period. So should the draft. I oppose the draft and SS for anyone, regardless of gender. If the powers that be want to have a war and can't convince enough people to fight it, then they don't get to have it. Therefore, I would support a Constitutional amendment. Don't hold your breath for it anytime soon.

To your GWB analogy I would say that a more apt one would be GWB (and other white people) claiming that African-Americans shouldn't get any resources, or do things on their own to improve their treatment in society and conditions in their own community, until a particular situation that was unfair to white people was resolved.

[Boojatta]

72. Your reply was very good!

As for what you call "draft equity" maybe feminists haven't devoted much time to that. Sorry, but ensuring that women can be conscripted (...) isn't real high on the priorities of most feminists.

Thank you. I believe that this answers my question. Keep in mind that my question was provoked by this:

Women fought hard for equality under the law, whether it be benefits or punishment.

I took the word "punishment" in the sense of anything that is punishing. Perhaps I misunderstood and it was meant in a narrow judicial sense.

I oppose the draft and SS for anyone, regardless of gender. If the powers that be want to have a war and can't convince enough people to fight it, then they don't get to have it. Therefore, I would support a Constitutional amendment.

In practice, that might be an excellent point of view in America. However, I'm wondering whether it would be universally applicable. For example, at least in the past, political authorities in a place like Switzerland probably had some justification for military conscription. If a few thousand people refused to fight because they were confident that the outcome of the war didn't depend on their decision and if their decision actually enabled invaders to inflict suffering on millions of people in Switzerland for generations, then conscription would seem to be the lesser of the two evils.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Good point

This is nothing, though. I actually had a guy on a message board tell me that it was the fault of the women's movement that men get raped in jail. Seriously. Why? Because feminists weren't doing enough to stop men getting raped in jail.

You're right, it is ridiculous. He's under the misassumption that the women's movement is intended to improve conditions for everyone. It's not.

Once you realize that feminism is not intended to improve the general human condition, the world is easier to understand. It's not the job of the womens movement to improve the world faced by their sons, it's the job of fathers.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. But the thing is, ending the patriarchy WILL improve the lives of a lot of men

It's just that feminism, in order to be effective, must focus on the conditions of women first. In a patriarchal society, men are the default humans so their experience will always eclipse whatever women are going through.

[Boojatta]

77. "feminism, in order to be effective, must focus on the conditions of women first"

Technically, feminists do the focusing. What accounts for the required sequence? Would attention to problems that directly affect only men be patronizing and thus contrary to feminism? Are people who simultaneously focus on conditions of men and women acting contrary to the principles of feminism?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

81. Can you give me an example of a movement that focuses on both men and women

Where the interests of men don't end up dominating? Not trying to be a smart aleck here, I'd just like to know what you come up with. The closest one I can think of is Planned Parenthood, which is not specifically a feminist organization, but probably offers more assistance to women in its goal of promoting responsible family planning, which is beneficial to both genders. Still, the work of feminists for the rights of women to control their bodies was crucial to the success of Planned Parenthood.

[Boojatta]

82. The components of your question themselves raise questions.

How do you know whether or not a given issue is specifically a matter of men's interests? How do you determine which interests or issues are dominating?

Still, the work of feminists for the rights of women to control their bodies was crucial to the success of Planned Parenthood.

If feminists had pursued legal dominion for both men and women over their own bodies simultaneously, then would they have failed and thus been unable to help Planned Parenthood?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. If men had a legal dominion issue that was comparable to abortion rights, then no.

The question is irrelevant because there is no comparable situation in the patriarchy.

[Boojatta]

92. In what respects would it have to be comparable?

If, during a war, the executive branch didn't try to hire women to work in factories that produce things for war, but simply detained them, then would the common law remedy of Habeas Corpus not be available? I may be wrong, but I think that the "corpus" in "Habeas Corpus" refers to the body.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

94. You have still failed to provide the answer I asked you for

If you don't have one, say so. Stop throwing irrelevant hypothetical examples at me. It's getting redundant. I guess you're trying to trap me or something and I'm frankly not interested anymore. Ultimately we are still left with you thinking that feminists need to do more for Teh Menz and me saying that's not going to happen anytime soon. So if these issues plague you so, get off the couch and do something about them yourself.

[Boojatta]

97. If I'm not mistaken, you left a number of questions unanswered.

Perhaps I have also, but then you should identify which one in particular you want answered.

Ultimately we are still left with you thinking that feminists need to do more for Teh Menz and me saying that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I think it would be helpful for a given organization to address both the issue of military conscription and also the issue of birth control rights. I think it would be difficult to deal with the draft issue in isolation for at least two reasons. First, historically the military draft has been an issue that directly affected men only. Second, Americans aren't now being drafted into the military. Of course, when there is a draft there probably won't be much time to react. However, it seems if an issue doesn't right now affect some people then they consider it to be an irrelevant hypothetical.

You haven't persuaded me that men who are feminists would be unwilling to organize opposition to the legal precedent that allows men to be drafted for military service in wars of aggression. In fact, you haven't even persuaded me that women who are feminists aren't going to work on that soon.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

98. But you've sure persuaded me that YOU'RE not about to start doing anything

Anytime soon.

[Boojatta]

99. Well, Hamlet is considered a classic example of someone who failed to start doing things, but

he stabbed Polonius and I didn't. Can I interest you in some disability insurance or do you not intend to protect yourself? How about some slightly used books? An unpublished manuscript?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

105. Well, I already have my own insurance license and am a frustrated author

As are so many of us on DU. ;)

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. How about civil rights? How about ACLU? How about labor? n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

104. All very important, and absolutely necessary.

However, the ACLU, civil rights, and labor organizations can't directly improve the conditions of women like feminist movements strive to do. Men are the default humans in the patriarchy, thus they will always come first. All those movements have an important place in the panopoly of efforts to improve society. But feminism is needed to address the first, and most entrenched, form of inequity.

Think about it: The reason there are separate and distinct movements for labor, civil liberties, and civil rights is because those organizations can't necessarily address the issues of the others. By the same token, those organizations aren't necessarily going to be able to address the unique issues that women face. Obviously all these movements are going to intersect at times. That's why we all need to be at the table.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. I don't disagree about the worth of the feminist movement.

But I don't agree that "men are the default humans". In fact, I'd argue the opposite. The patriarchy wasn't as inclined to rally 'round the civil rights movement until the civil rights movement found a damsel in distress in the personage of Rosa Parks.

Labor? The name "Norma Rae" springs to mind.

Activism requires focus. The civil rights movement does not promote the interests of solely (or even primarily) men - except to note perhaps, that it was mostly men who got lynched. The labor movement doesn't exclude women - even though it was almost exclusively the men who were murdered in the formative years of labor.

We live in an unbalanced time. Women have succeeded in obtaining equality of opportunity yet equality of expectations lag behind.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

107. "Damsels in distress" is a completely patriarchy-laden concept

It perpetuates the notion of women as passive objects in need of protection from their owner/masters. Making individual women the "face" of a movement in such a manner may help to elicit public sympathy and support for a cause but it does nothing to empower women as a class.

Furthermore, I never said that civil rights or the labor movement promoted the interests of men solely or primarily. What I'm saying is that to think that those movements can address the most fundamental form of oppression that exists in the world, that of men (as a class) over women (as a class) is naive. I can't imagine the labor movement suggesting that they can eradicate racial discrimination, thus there's no need for a civil rights movement. Similarly, the civil rights movement isn't really equipped to do what the labor movement does for workers.

BTW, maybe not many women were murdered in the formative years of labor, but plenty of women (and children) died in the horrific working conditions that existed prior to unions. More of those "damsels in distress", I guess. :eyes: Female suffragists were beaten and even killed trying to secure the right of women to vote. They deserve as much credit as labor activists for the improvements to the lives of millions of Americans, because women tend to vote progressively. You think we'd have had FDR's New Deal without women voters? In fact, pretty much every progressive movement, from abolition of slavery to the abolition of child labor, had women doing a large share of the grunt work. Women weren't subject to the draft but they were out in large numbers to protest the Vietnam war. Yet the revolution of the 60s was still very much a boy's party when it came to leadership roles and what issues took precedence. The second wave feminist movement largely grew out of women, active in civil rights and the counterculture, who were tired of being told by the guys to get back in the kitchen when they wanted to talk about gender equity.

Speaking of voting, isn't it interesting how African-American males were accorded the right to vote more than 50 years before all women were? Yes, I realize that Jim Crow came along quickly to put the kibosh on it, but how does that fit into your argument that social change movements without feminism, or at least a feminist component, will not automatically put men's interests first?

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. That is absolutely correct.

"the notion of women as passive objects in need of protection from their owner/masters" is also inherent in legislation such as "the violence against women act". Empowerment is a double-edged sword, and the very point of this thread is about how inconvenient it has been to reject patriarchy in its totality and to embrace true equality.

I would love to hear a strong message about how women are underrepresented in carpentry, logging, fishing, ironworking, welding, etc. Until then, I'll take the speeches about the glass ceiling from my governor, both my US senators and my state representative (all women) with a small grain of salt. I also note that none of them, unlike me, were required to register for selective service.

I do not include you in this group but I have heard many self-proclaimed feminists argue that the treatment of Mary Kay LeTourneau, Susan Smith and Andrea Yates was too harsh because their husbands (owner/masters) did an inadequate job detecting the mental state which led to their crimes. This, along with firmly entrenched bias against fathers - a "women and children first" attitude in our legal system are the convenient parts of the patriarchy, which the feminist movement is disinclined to oppose.

This is the core of my whole point about the feminist movement; it's not about equality any more than a football game is about sportsmanship.

Furthermore, I never said that civil rights or the labor movement promoted the interests of men solely or primarily...
isn't it interesting how African-American males were accorded the right to vote more than 50 years before all women were?... how does that fit into your argument that social change movements without feminism, or at least a feminist component, will not automatically put men's interests first?

Yet you say exactly that, again, only one paragraph later.

Emancipation freed black women* to the same degree as contemporaneous white women, which was its intent. Obtaining anything for white people (including women) wasn't it's intent.

* yes, a big asterisk is necessary, because I think that blacks still face huge social and cultural barriers.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

111. I'm with you on LeTourneau and Smith

But Rusty Yates is an abusive fucking shitheel who should be rotting in jail. That was more than just negligence on his part. He isolated and imprisoned his mentally ill (diagnosed manic depressive, suicidal, post partum depression) wife in their home, mindfucking her further into having baby after baby to fulfill his own little fundie delusions of grandeur. There was no "uncovering of her mental state" needed there. No comparison to the other two.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. Did Rusty Yates kill anyone?

Have you ever heard of anything analagous? Have you ever read of a grown up man whose crimes have been attributed to the inaction of the woman in his life?

Rusty Yates might be a wierdo, but I do not think that his beliefs mitigate or excuse anything that Andrea did.

Andrea was under a psychiatrists care, to whom Rusty took her, after all. In retrospect, she clearly should have been committed. It's more of a case of malpractice, really.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

114. My understanding is Rusty took her out of the care

He moved the family to an isolated rural area and had them living in a refurbished bus so his quack fundie minister could do "faith healing". Perfect situation for a paranoid, suicidal manic depressive, right? But he didn't want to interrupt his use of her as his personal broodmare. She was hospitalized briefly a few times when she got so bad she was actively threatening to kill herself but she wasn't getting the ongoing care that she needed.

As for whether a he could be charged, it's a tough call. I just asked my bf, who is an attorney what he thinks and he says a parent can be charged for leaving children in an unsafe condition. There have been cases in my state of mothers being charged and jailed for leaving kids unattended. Leaving children with a mentally deranged woman like Andrea Yates rises to that level, IMO.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. No. The patriarchy is harmful to both genders.

For every woman who was expected to stay home to care for the kids, there was a man who was expected to pick up a spear (or sword, or lance, or bow or crossbow or rifle) to die protecting them.

Men take hazardous work to provide for their families because it's what the patriarchy expects of them.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

109. I agree with that.

However, the patriarchy is predicated on the idea that men are superior to women, and thus should dominate them. Unless and until that idea is demolished, and it will only be so when the status of women is raised, both women and men will continue to suffer.

Your example of men doing dangerous jobs applies perfectly. Those jobs are dangerous, in large part, because of thousands of years of social conditioning about what is "manly". I worked in a blue collar industry for many years where safety measures were resisted, not just by management because of the cost, but often by workers themselves. Guys would simply refuse to wear safety gear or follow procedures. It was a puzzlement to me until I realized it was borne of a deeply entrenched competitive machismo attitude. They would rather risk being hurt or killed, than be seen as somehow effeminate. There is nothing more horrifying to many men than to be likened to a woman in any way. In some companies, the whole corporate culture is steeped in this attitude. I can't say what percentage of injuries are a direct result of this, and I certainly don't want to suggest that the majority of men are to blame for their workplace injuries. But I personally knew more than one man who got seriously hurt on the job because he didn't want to follow those "girly safety rules". That's a direct quote, BTW.

(I'm guessing by your screen name that you're in the lumber industry. I'm not familiar with it but I do know it's dangerous and I wouldn't presume to suggest that your experience with workplace injuries and fatalities mirrors mine.)

What my experience proves to me is that the biggest harm patriarchy does to men is forcing them to differentiate themselves from women to such an extreme that it often kills them. That will only change when being a woman is not such a bad thing to be.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. More of a Monty Python fan, actually.

... but one who happens to live surrounded by the logging industry.

Yes, I have to concede that workplace safety is inhibited not only by the profit/productivity motive but also by machismo.

I think that gender relations have been terribly harmed by misattributing what machismo and patriarchy are about. They're only about power to the extent that strength is seen as a prerequisite of protection. Take it from a guy.

Patriarchy will end when protection of one gender is seen as unneeded and unwanted. In other words, with its emphasis on protection for women, the feminist movement won't end the patriarchy - if anything it enables it to continue.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

113. The vast majority of women in the world do not enjoy the patriarchal protection you speak of

Again, you are focusing on a subset of privileged women, usually from the privileged class (white, wealthy) who get to be "damsels in distress" and extrapolating globally. To a certain extent I count myself among them. The reality for the majority of women in the world is far different.

For example, we have the privilege, and the luxury, to have a debate in America about whether or not women should be drafted or be in combat. You've mentioned your dismay at having to register for selective service yourself. Putting aside the issue as it effects you and me, let's look at how other women around the world experience war. Ask the women in Iraq about whether or not they should be in combat. They are. Ask the women in Darfur their opinion on whether women can handle the rigors of war. I think they're too busy trying to avoid being gang-raped or slaughtered to answer that. Ask the women of Serbia and Bosnia if they think the women were getting their fair share of the war that raged there a decade ago. Let a war hit our shores and we'll see how well the patriarchy protects us women here.

In other words, the "protection" patriarchy offers women is an illusion. It's admittedly a widely-believed illusion, and it helps make the oppression more palatable to some of its subjects but it simply doesn't exist. Patriarchy is not, and has never been, about protecting women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. A phenomenon I find intriguing.

I find it interesting that the only people who feel equipped to unequivocally describe the nature of patriarchy are those who are better equipped to explain the nature of matriarchy.

Patriarchy is about protecting women and children. The power structures that it created are a side effect. That fact does not it make it less of an anachronism. Modern feminism is about selectively treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Yes, this thread is primarily about US culture and law. I did, however read somewhere a UN report about promoting peace "because women and children are much more likely to be refugees". That is doubtless true, if for no other reason than because their men are dead.

Implicit is the presumption that opposing war is helped by using terms that the patriarchy understands.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

119. Patriarchy is about protecting the power, resources, and privilege of men at the top. Period. nt.

[Bright Eyes]

48. *Dupe*

sorry

[Rageneau]

8. Only if she gets him pregnant.

[rateyes]

11. If that happens, I want the movie rights...

:rofl:

[dsc]

16. There have been many cases in which the woman got pregnant

from this type of senario and they boy had to pay support thus ruining his life by precluding any chance of post secondary education.

[gulliver]

38. Spoil sport!

Thanks for the post, though.

I guess most guys picture the situation as "hot teacher seduces more-than-willing teenage boy." But change the story to "drunk skank seduces boy, gives him AIDS, and sues him for child support." It's cool as long as the media gets to pick the girl.

[JackRiddler]

91. I'm sure there have also been cases in which the pregnant woman was imprisoned

and gave birth there. Was this better?

There have got to be ways for society to regulate this admitted problem without criminalizing every case, which usually ruins lives more thoroughly than other scenarios.

[dsc]

96. It is called deterence

and yes, I believe in that.

[rateyes]

12. To answer your question:

Hell yes.

[sendero]

13. While I will never think...

... that men and women are the same except for their plumbing, I believe fervently in equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities under the law and in areas of employment, civics and society.

As such, it is impossible to treat women differently under the law in this matter. The laws should be gender neutral, period.

[ThomWV]

14. Only if its OK for old men to bang young girls too.

Doesn't sound so nice when you put it that way, does it?

[Sparkly]

15. I once raised a similar question here.

(And got Hell for it! But that's okay.)

I am not convinced that this is a directly reversible equation, either. I think that's a test for many circumstances -- in a well-intended effort to establish equality -- that doesn't always work. It presumes that all other factors are equal, and they simply aren't.

So I want to let you know that as you get the test of direct reversal thrown at you ("what about an old guy preying on young girls"), there's at least one other person here who agrees it's worth debating whether that test is perfect in every way.

[depakid]

18. Thankfully, some sanity

and well said.

[Selatius]

17. I think it depends on the situation. I think each case should be weighed individually.

Like, if a 24 year-old teacher has sex with a 17 year-old highschooler, the teacher should lose her job, but I wouldn't say it's an issue of statutory rape, especially if the age of consent is 16 or lower.

[bemildred]

19. It depends on the specific case.

The ages of the parties, their relationship, how they feel about it. I agree rather strongly that children need and deserve protection from exploitation by adults, and not just in sexual matters. However the parties feelings and thoughts about what they are doing must be considered. If the young persons do not feel damaged or exploited, it is not the same sort of situation as when there is coercion, overt manipulation, or violence. And I find the notion that criminal process is a good answer to all such cases ridiculous. There are very few things in human affairs that criminal process is a good solution for.

[GreaseMan]

120. I agree fully!....

If she is a ugly ho bag.. throw the book at her! :spank: , If she is beautiful then give her a bonus on her next paycheck! :rofl:

[Ravy]

20. Just lower the consentual age for sex for males to 12. Raise female consentual age to 18.

Sounds ridiculous, right?

But isn't that what the OP is really asking?

[BearSquirrel2]

22. equal protection

I believe the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. The acts have to be treated the same. Yeah sure, if you were a 13 year old boy who was having relations with their cute teacher, you would be proud. But equally, a girl in the same situation might be equally proud of a relationship with the cute gym teacher. From the adult standpoint the issue is the same. You're preying on people with immature emotions. It's not a fair game and you have no business playing it regardless of gender.

BTW, under the rules the OP suggest, it would be of equal no consequence for a gay teacher to have a relationship with a boy. That or a Lesbian teacher to have a relationship with a girl. Obviously, these would not be condoned.

[dsc]

21. Of course she should be punished

What if a sterile male teacher, who is well known to be sterile, has sex with a willing young female student. Would that be OK? What if a male teacher had sex with an openly gay student. Would that be OK? Of course, not. The issue is one of trust and power. Teachers are powerful role models in our kids lives for good or bad. If I didn't know that before this semester, I sure do now. I know gay kids are looking up to me in a way I wouldn't have thought before. Women who abuse this trust for their lustful pleasure are no better than men who do so. There are plenty of males who are paying child support to women who got pregnant while statutorily raping them. That seems like being a victim to me.

[tavalon]

23. I get what you're saying

The problem is there is a power imbalance and when such an imbalance exists, there is a more than good chance that the power will be abused somewhere, somehow. Our laws, being laws for huge numbers of people are cookie cutter laws, made good enough for most, made horribly wrong for a few and as well, when you are making laws that must cross gender lines, it's very important that they be as even as possible, as lenient and/or harsh for the perpetrator no matter what sex the "victim" is or how "victimized" they feel. There is the confounding factor that some "victims" don't feel the least bit victimized and that doesn't seem to have a complete gender bias, (though the Miss Grundys of the world would like you to believe that it is always the girls victimized much more). So if our legal system could stop being so federalized and standardized, perhaps this could be a bit better dealt with. On the other hand, it could be much, much worse if we left it to the individual judges who carry, just like you and I, a whole suitcase of moral values and ethical judgments that may well be an anathema to our own.

I do recognize that you are trying to point out a gender difference that some, for many reasons, would not like to look at or have pointed out. Because I've chosen a life that lives itself well of the grid of what the Miss Grundy's of the world would call respectable, I have a lot more room in this noggin for nuanced thinking. Our courts have no such advantage.

[Lilith Velkor]

24. Nobody ever questions the assumption that underage girls are damaged by consensual sex

whether it's with men or with boys. The girl's opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

When we become adult women, we are assumed to only want sex in the context of a committed monogamous relationship, and if we don't, something must be wrong with us, and our own feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Try thinking about that next time you are wondering why women are so *hysterical and unreasonable* about male sexuality. :eyes:

[Withywindle]

55. Agreed.

It's a very Victorian, superstitious, narrow, and paranoid notion of female sexuality. But that's what our culture is comfortable with.

Works nicely for those few women who actually fit that stereotype, I guess. Not so great for those of us who don't.

[Xithras]

61. There have been several studies that suggested no damage.

Predictably, those conducting the studies were attacked viciously for it. The defining line for trauma seems to be CONSENSUAL versus FORCED and COERCED. Forced and coerced sex can injure a female of any age.

[Prefer]

25. Yes, but only if it breaks the law.

Shouldn't happen that the kids cross lines with parents peers.

[cgrindley]

26. Absolutely. The law must be applied equally always

lock these stupid pieces of child abusing shit away forever is what I say. Whatever penalty is awarded to a man, let the same be awarded to a woman.

PS every kid talks like the kids on South Park.

[AngryAmish]

29. Is there proof that there is damage to boys from this sort of thing?

Real proof, like worse school outcomes, increased criminality or mental disturbances. Since lads can't get pregnant then there is good reason to treat female offenders differently.

[PassingFair]

36. How about STD's.

Unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned fatherhood
at age 12 or 13?

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Like children of their own? n/t

[AngryAmish]

74. I was unclear. Forgive me.

What I meant was damage from sex with an older woman that would not be present with sex with a girl their own age.

[jpgray]

30. To demystify the problem, it's the same reason you can't sign a binding contract when under 18

Are some minors mature enough to make their decision about a sexual relationship with an adult on a relatively equal level? Sure. But some aren't, and those need protection. An immature minor might easily be exploited by a more mature adult into a relationship he or she wouldn't otherwise enter into, and the law needs to protect those minors to the unfortunate but necessary detriment of more mature minors. Same with voting age restrictions, same with denying biological fathers the right to stop a woman from having an abortion. When making laws that protect the vulnerable, sometimes the capable and innocent are more or less unfairly restricted as a result.

[DavidDvorkin]

31. Yes! And the punishment should be:

They should be required to have sex with men in their 60s!

[Lex]

33. Female victims can get pregnant

and that used to be one of the reasons the punishment was greater--that greater harm could come to the girl (pregnancy).

I think the law about this should be gender neutral, however.

[rucky]

41. Of course.

There's really no need to make it complicated.

[Didereaux]

45. the problem is with natures age and not an arbitrary legislateed one, BUT...

since there has yet to be discovered method of actually making such decisions, and the very real need to allow childhood to run its course naturally it becomes paramount to apply the laws equally. As the King of Siam was want to say "It is a puzzlement!"

[justanaveragedude]

49. I'll be the guy who kind of agrees with the op

Saying that a 25 year old female teacher having sex with a 15 year old boy is the same as a 25 year old male teacher having sex with a 15 year old girl, is like saying grandma striking me across the face because i cut in line at the grocery store is the same as Mike Tyson knocking my block for the doing the same. No one is going to put grandma in jail, but Tyson would likely see some time. As it should be.

I am not condoning female teacher/male student relationships, it is wrong and can not be tolerated. However, if I found out that my 15 year old son is sleeping with a female teacher I'm going to put a stop to it, try to get the teacher fired and stripped of her certification. If it is my 15 year old daughter, the teacher will at the very least take a severe ass beating if not a bullet in the back of the skull.

With that being said, as the child gets younger in sexual situations the more the difference goes away. Sleeping with a 9 year old should be punishable by death regardless of the gender of the adult in question.

I know that is a double standard, but it is my honest opinion.

[Dr. Strange]

53. There's nothing wrong with you having a double standard.

The government on the other hand has the 14th amendment to contend with. The gender(s) of the teacher and student shouldn't matter.

And if Mike Tyson touched me, I'd kick his ass. Or maybe his grandmother's ass...

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[LWolf]

51. Yes.

It's not about the sex, it's about the power. A teenage/adult relationship, regardless of gender, is not one of equal power.

Teenage boys don't need sexual "mommies."

If our culture was set up with some sort of "rite of passage" and legal adulthood at puberty, then age disparity wouldn't matter so much.

Our culture, and our economic system, is not structured that way, though.

[sandnsea]

52. Should adult men who have relations with underage males be punished?

Or are all boys equally able to handle all sexual situations?

[Warren Stupidity]

57. I was wondering if anyone would ask that.

My guess is that the OP will not attempt an answer.

Adults should not have sex with children as children should be assumed to be incapable of making informed choices, consequently the situation should be considered coercive, which is why legally it is considered rape. That not all such acts cause harm is somewhat beside the point.

[Withywindle]

54. Do you really believe that young girls DON'T also fantasize about older men?

That they don't talk about it with their friends? That they don't flirt with cute teachers? That they don't feel sexual interest starting at puberty? Of course they do! The issue is, it's an abuse of power because the teacher, in a position of responsibility, should know better. Regardless of the genders involved.

[LostinVA]

60. Yummo!

:popcorn:

[focusfan]

62. I would have given my eye teeth for an older woman when i was 14

[LanternWaste]

66. Many 14 year old girls say the same thing about their teachers.

Many 14 year old girls say the same thing about their older teachers.


Many children today have fantasies about blowing up their homes and schools. Thank God fantasies are just fantasies... because there is no fourteen year old alive that understands the full depth and breadth of the consequences and results of being taken advantage of. I'd expect some wouldn't even realize that they are indeed being abused-- they'd probably just call it a fantasy. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. I'd have given my eye teeth for a cape and x-ray vision and a beard like GI Joe.

Because I was a kid.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. The only logic which could underlie different treatment

... is one or more of the below

1) adult women are inherently less capable of governing their behavior than men.
2) unlike adult men and girls, adult women and boys are a peer or near-peer relationship.
3) girls are deserving of protection to a degree that boys are not.
4) girls are harmed by consensual sex while boys are not.
5) girls romantic fantasies of adult men would be inherently harmful and unnatural to pursue, while those of boys are natural and benign.

All of the above views are inherently sexist. So your answer is yes. Rapists deserve equal treatment.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

86. Very well put.

And also, isn't the conventional wisdom that girls mature faster than boys? So wouldn't an affair with a grown man be LESS harmful to a girl, given her supposed advanced physical and emotional level, than to a boy? Funny how that conveniently gets reversed in this situation.

[book_worm]

65. they should be held to the same standards as a male teacher with a female student

there should be no double standard. or male teacher with a male student or female teacher with a female student.

[Ezlivin]

70. Yes, they must all be spanked

DINGO: Oh, wicked, wicked Zoot. Oh, she is a naughty person and she must pay the penalty, and here in Castle Anthrax, we have but one punishment for setting alight the grail-shaped beacon: you must tie her down on a bed and spank her.
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: You must spank her well, and after you have spanked her, you may deal with her as you like, and then, spank me.
AMAZING: And spank me.
STUNNER: And me.
LOVELY: And me.
DINGO: Yes. Yes, you must give us all a good spanking!
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking! There is going to be a spanking tonight!
DINGO: And after the spanking, the oral sex.
GIRLS: The oral sex! The oral sex!
GALAHAD: Well, I could stay a bit longer.

[treestar]

75. Maybe the rules should be broken down a little

Instead of the stark difference adult/child suddenly changing at 18.

Have a junior set of rules for the 16-18 set, where the adult is not punished as severely, and the teen's particular vulnerability considered. That way it could be gender blind, too. There are 16 year old girls who could handle a relationship with an older man too - it should just have an easier standard. Obviously those past puberty are not "children" physically ih the same sense as 10 year olds and less, in fact, physically they are adult.

[Sam_Smith]

76. You were having sex at nine or ten with adult females?

Or did you mean at nine or ten o'clock?

[TexasBushwhacker]

78. Of course, but ....

the only reason that we've heard about "all the cases" female high school teachers having relationships with their students is because it's NEWS. It is still far more common for male teachers to have relationships with their female or male students. It just happens so much that it's not news unless the the student is very young.

[Sultana]

84. Yes! nt

[Stuart G]

87. a Principal had relations with 13 year old young men...and guess what.

The principal was a nun...in charge of a Catholic School, and she had sex, with the Principal. Now..twenty to thirty years later..well the boys are really screwed up, and guess what..no penalty for the nun. Oh she isn't in charge of school anymore. and there was a lawsuit..but she is well, too old to prosecute..What do you think?..Saw it a few months ago......

[elehhhhna]

88. Well, should adult males who have relations with underage males be punished?

[JerseygirlCT]

90. But it's not about how you as a teen, would have felt

It's about the responsibility of an adult -- all adults -- not to abuse children. It's quite simply a "don't go there" thing, regardless of the genders involved. The reason for that is that children (and yes, I'm including teens here) are deemed not ready to make those decisions for themselves. They may behave as if they are enjoying the encounter, or even believe they are, while damage is being done to them by an adult -- the person in power.

There's really no reason for this to happen except people who either lack the basic control or have an illness that requires serious treatment.

These relationships, as in any abusive one, are more about the exercise of power than they are about sex or meaningful relationships, no matter what the abuser tells her/himself about being in love, etc.

[etherealtruth]

93. Should adults that have sex with children be punished?

From my perspective ... YES

Details such as gender are irrelevant

[hack89]

100. Yes nt

[varkam]

117. Of course they should.

The issue is one of consent, not of gender. The ages of consent don't differ in jurisdictions based upon an individuals gender. If, in a hypothetical jurisdiction, the age of consent is 18 then whether or not a 16-year-old is male or female they still cannot legally consent to sexual activity.

Also, early sexual activity can screw up guys as well as gals - the extent of which depends upon how early and how traumatic it is.

Nonetheless, I do not feel that there should be any sort of double-standard in our justice system for female versus male perpetrators.

[Boojatta]

118. Kick because if there were a lot more threads like this in GD,

then the DU Lounge would have a lot more difficulty making laugh-out-loud parodies of GD behavior.