That happened in my old neighborhood. Wow. Is it just me, or does Florida have an inordinate number of teacher-student sex scandals?
-pH
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And if the teacher had been male and the student female, do you think the teacher would be getting probation?
She should be doing time in prison.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It did. And it happened a few times with a few different teachers, as I recall.
And I think they were mostly in Florida.
As a matter of fact, at my school, a teacher was fired after having been under investigation by the FBI for sexual emails to a student. *wanders off to find article*
-pH
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
We had a French teacher in middle school who stalked female students. Luckily, he's been fired and indicted.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
One of the gym teachers from my old high school is currently under investigation and has been fired for having sex with his students.
Try this link for more info. My favorite part is this quote from her attorney:
quote:Fitzgibbons said in July that plea negotiations had broken off because prosecutors insisted on prison time, which he said would be too dangerous for someone as attractive as Lafave.
Pretty people can't do time! When will people learn?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Wow am I glad that a hot teacher didn't have sex with me when I was 14.
Not to belittle her crime, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the "victim" still considers that day the best day of his life.
I understand why the laws are there, and agree with their necessity, but forgive me if I don't shed any tears for him.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Actually, the 'victim' and her were kind of dating, if I remember right from the original article, back when this story first broke.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The victim in quotes thing is making me uncomfortable.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Pretty people can't do time! When will people learn?
I know just how she feels.
Smokey is too pretty to go into the kennel for boarding when we're away. It wouldn't be safe.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I just hope that judge realizes what a laughingstock he'll be from now on. I wait in rapture for next season's Law and Order. ^___^
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Maybe it's insensitive of me, but I remember being 14, and consensual sex with a twenty-something would not have been I would've thought I needed protection from.
I know that a 14 year old can't have consensual sex, not being of the age of consent. But I knew plenty, male and female, who did. I thought it was a bad idea for the most part.
But I think X's point was that the victim was probably not all that traumatized by the incident.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Why did I think smokey was a black chow and lab mix?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I want to state that when i was 14, I would have... Sorry, there is no delicate way of putting this... I would have cut my left nut off to loose my virginity to a woman as attractive as that one... I mean just imagine how many boys thought of this reading teacher as they lay in their beds drifting off to sleep...
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Pleasure does not preclude harm.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Sorry, there is no delicate way of putting this...
How about "Would have really, really, really liked to . . . "?
quote:I would have cut my left nut off to loose my virginity to a woman as attractive as that one...
After you do that a couple of times, though, it loses its allure.
-o-
I'm intrigued by the notion that the attractiveness of the person to whom you lose your virginity has some long-term importance. Do you keep a picture of your first partner in your wallet and pull it out to compare?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Why did I think smokey was a black chow and lab mix?
Yes. Can't you see the oriental features in the eyes?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Well of course he's part chow, that's obvious from his snout and ears.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Well, the first one is the one that you'll never forget at any point in time... unless you were intoxicated... in which case... it shouldn't count...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Does the sex feel better if she's more attractive? Are you more ashamed if she's not?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Ummm I think you can ask Breyerchic about me and my lack of shame... It's just one of those things, you want your first time to be perfect, I know mine wasn't, but I also don't have a great track record...
Are you saying that you as a 14 year old male, wouldn't have loved to loose it to that attractive woman?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
See, if it was 14 year old girl and 25 year old, extremely HOT male teacher, you wouldn't be using the "victim" quotes, even if the girl in question really enjoyed the sex. It wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
In any case where it was consensual, even if not legal, I'd use the quotes...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Smokey is chow/golden retriever. And female, or would this even be an issue . . . Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:After you do that a couple of times, though, it loses its allure.
Okay, that was just the funniest thing I've read in a long, long time.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Pleasure does not preclude harm.
Amen.
Incidentally, I think the quotes should be used around "consent" in the circumstances of a 14 year old rather than "victim".
That child (yes, he's a child) is a victim. Regardless of how attractive the teacher is.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well put, imogen.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Then would you say that in a case of a 17 year old with an attractive 28 year old, the 17 year old, who is still legally a child, is a victim?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Sorry Stryker, she's not that good looking. I can't even back you up on that.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
ehh... I was more sticking around because it seemed that I was on trial....
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I would say that if you are a child, legally, intellectually, and in terms of experience--as a seventeen-year-old is--and you have sex with someone who is half-again as old as you are, yes, you have been in an unequal relationship, with someone who, as far as the evidence shows, has some issues relating with other adults, and must therefore sleep with children in order to be on a superior footing. I would say that such a relationship is unethical, unhealthy, and predatory. And as the younger person, the one less likely to be intelligent enough to say no, the one naive enough to think this is a good thing, you are the victim. And the "adult," who should have known better but did not care, is the victimizer.
Yes.
That answer your question? Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by J T Stryker: Then would you say that in a case of a 17 year old with an attractive 28 year old, the 17 year old, who is still legally a child, is a victim?
If that 28 year old happened to be that child's teacher, certainly.
Of course, the line gets more blurred the closer one gets to the age of consent. In Australia, the age of consent is 16 - so a 17 year old sleeping with a 28 year old would be legal.
However, it is not legal here for a teacher to sleep with their student if that student is under 18. A 28 year old teacher sleeping with a 17 year old student could, and probably would be prosecuted.
I think this is an important law, as it recognises the position of power and influence any teacher will have over their students, and the inevitable consequence that will have on any relationship between them.
However, the facts of this case was the child was 14. Not 17. I don't think this one of the cases that blurs the line.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:The boy told investigators the two had sex in a classroom at the school, located in Temple Terrace near Tampa, in her Riverview town house and once in a vehicle while his 15-year-old cousin drove them around Marion County.
!?!
Okay seriously, how stupid can you get? Did they want to be caught?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
She probably did, on some level.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Pleasure does not preclude harm.
Only if you consider sex somehow inherantly harmful.
quote:See, if it was 14 year old girl and 25 year old, extremely HOT male teacher, you wouldn't be using the "victim" quotes, even if the girl in question really enjoyed the sex. It wouldn't be an issue.
Of course it would. If the sex was consensual, and both are sexual developed (ie, no pedophilia involved), then nothing evil happened.
That leaves aside the question of legality, of course. This woman should be prosecuted
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Only if you consider sex somehow inherantly harmful
Or, only if you consider sex below the age of consent with a person in a position of influence and responsibility inherently harmful.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I would say that if you are a child, legally, intellectually, and in terms of experience--as a seventeen-year-old is--and you have sex with someone who is half-again as old as you are, yes, you have been in an unequal relationship, with someone who, as far as the evidence shows, has some issues relating with other adults, and must therefore sleep with children in order to be on a superior footing. I would say that such a relationship is unethical, unhealthy, and predatory. And as the younger person, the one less likely to be intelligent enough to say no, the one naive enough to think this is a good thing, you are the victim. And the "adult," who should have known better but did not care, is the victimizer.
Yes.
That answer your question?
But if an 18-year-old has sex with a 29-year-old, it's legal.
Therefore, on the 18th birthday, a magical maturity switch is flipped.
-pH
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That's true for any law with an age level.
Sure it's arbitrary. But I can't think of a better way to do it, can you?
At some point a law legislating with respect to age will have to have an arbitrary line. The fact that it does is not an argument against the law, or the behaviour it is regulating.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I was 15 when I was having sex with my then boyfriend, who was 24.
I was not at all a victim and I remember him fondly. I think it's entirely possible for a young girl to have sex with an older man and be okay about it.
However I do feel that it's wrong for a teacher to have sex with a student, regardless of age.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:But if an 18-year-old has sex with a 29-year-old, it's legal.
Therefore, on the 18th birthday, a magical maturity switch is flipped.
Everything I said applies to your example too; your example is simply not illegal. Any line that is drawn must necessarily be arbitrary. It is impossible to find a well-defined line in a gray area. That's true in a lot of other circumstances besides sex. JT's case in in the gray, as is yours. He wanted an answer, so I gave him one. The difference between the two is which side of the legal line they are on. Does a switch flip in you when you turn eighteen? No. Eighteen-year-olds are generally immature, too. Is an eighteen year old with a thirty year old a healthy sexual relationship? Almost certainly not. But at some point we have to stop protecting you and trust you to make your own messes and deal with their own consequences.
I know that, as a relatively young person, you don't like what I'm saying. You believe you have all the knowledge and wisdom of the ages, and can point to many examples of stupid and immature older people to back you up (as if that somehow means anything). It's pretty much inevitable; one of the characteristics of being this age is believing you in fact are more knowledgeable and more wise that you really are.
Heck, I remember the time not too long ago when a Hatracker just under the age of eighteen took it upon herself to jeopardize my career. There was no convincing her that she was wrong, because she knew better than everyone else what was right for them, and she was incensed at any suggestion that this was not true. She took it upon herself to decide whether the threat she posed to my career was legitimate or not, and dismissed my concerns out of hand. She was so certain she knew better than anyone else, that she deceived me and the other people who shared my concern, and probably thought that she was so clever that we could not see how she was manipulating us. This is pretty typical high school mentality: the rules are arbitrary and unfair. They don't apply to mature people such as yourself. You shouldn't have to follow arbitrary rules that clearly aren't meant for you. It's okay if you connive to get around such rules.
I don't expect to convince you. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I realize that it's arbitrary. I just have issues with this law and the ways in which it's enforced.
I don't think it's right for teachers to have sex with their students, but I must admit, I and each of my three current roommates have all dated teachers at some point (I'm not sure if anyone had sex with one, though). Not teachers from our own schools, though, and I think everyone was above the age of consent. It does kind of unnerve me, though. Of course, it also unnerves me to learn that teachers have lives.
You guys know how I feel about sex for myself (what other people do is their own business), but a lot of the guys I dated in high school were in their twenties, and I never felt as though I were being taken advantage of by them. In fact, I felt the guys my age were much more likely to be manipulative and pushy than the older men, so I feel it's unfair to automatically assume that an older person sleeping with a younger person is a predator.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm sure you do feel okay about it, treason, but I wonder why your twenty-four year old boyfriend felt more comfortable dating and bedding a child barely more than half his own age than finding a date among his peers.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I felt the guys my age were much more likely to be manipulative and pushy than the older men, . . .
Or maybe they were merely more likely to be transparent about it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:I felt the guys my age were much more likely to be manipulative and pushy than the older men, . . .
Or maybe they were merely more likely to be transparent about it.
Possible, but as I don't have sex....
I'm not saying that older guys can't be predatory. The man I was going to marry was eight years my senior and almost certainly just looking for some young, impressionable girl he could turn into his housewife, completely fixated on him. I'm just saying older does not necessarily mean predatory.
I also DEFINLTEY don't think this woman was right. Or the teacher from my high school. Or a professor I heard of here who was rumored to be sleeping with a student.
-pH
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I'm just saying older does not necessarily mean predatory.
Of course it doesn't.
But because it can, and because people in a position of trust and responsibility and influence can abuse that position, we as a society have to protect people. And in the case of sexual relations, that means protecting the younger person (or child).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I'm just saying older does not necessarily mean predatory.
I don't think older means predatory.
I think that older AND looking for a substantially younger sexual partner--and lets arbitrarily define "substantially younger" as being both a teenager and close to half of his/her own age--make for very troubling signs. These in combination make me believe a relationship is unhealthy much more often than not, and that the older person is being predatory, again, much more often than not.
[ November 22, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In fact, I felt the guys my age were much more likely to be manipulative and pushy than the older men, so I feel it's unfair to automatically assume that an older person sleeping with a younger person is a predator.
No, it's not. Not even a LITTLE unfair.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Foust, Pleasure does not preclude harm, and sex is not inherently harmful. I don't see the connection there.
Let me explain. It is not unheard of for males to become erect or ejaculate while being taken anally without consent. This is a biological result of having the prostate prodded. I doubt these people would say they were not 'harmed.' Actually, information on the subject would suggest thatthe pleasure factor is the worst the part of this sort of violation.
Not that it has anything to do with this topic, except to illustrate that "pleasure does not preclude harm" = "Sex is bad." I don't think sex is bad, but people can be harmed by it in that pleasure can bind you to someone who does not have your best interests at heart. Such as women who stay with abusive or manipulative men because the sex is good. Seen that one happen.
Icarus, I agree - There were times when I worked as a young adult at a teen summer camp, and so help me God, it would have been like shooting fish in a kitchen sink. Not that I would ever be so skanky
JT- for the record, I did not mean to seem like I was attacking you at all. I'm sure the uproar around the woman's trial has made the boy a victim in ways the actual acts probably did not. I just hate the implication that a boy is "lucky" to be having sex before he can shave, when a girl the same age would seen as an object of pity (or at least not the object of so many "whoa! way to go!" types of comments.
Not that they might not be accurate in either case.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I wonder how this boy is going to treat girls his own age now.
-pH
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: In fact, I felt the guys my age were much more likely to be manipulative and pushy than the older men, so I feel it's unfair to automatically assume that an older person sleeping with a younger person is a predator.
No, it's not. Not even a LITTLE unfair.
Can't you recognize that not all cases must be predatory? My mother was nineteen and my father was twenty-seven when they got engaged. That was over thirty years ago and they're still married. My father is not a predator and my mother is not a victim.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
As I've said, it's in the gray area. At least your mother was above the legal age of consent. And how long was their engagement? (Not that it's my business.)
I don't think Tom is talking about any older man. I think we're talking about a substantially older man, percentage-wise, with a teenage girl. Your mother was barely a teenager. And that's when they got engaged. I won't presume to speculate about when they started having sex, but I hope you can see the point that the relationship you're describing is different from the one's we're talking about. It is barely even relevant.
Also, thirty years ago, it was considered more natural for the balance of power in a relationship to favor the man.
But ultimately, as I've noted before, we're talking about a gray area; there is a line in there somewhere, and society has chosen to put it at eighteen (often with caveats regarding the age-difference of the people involved).
We won't be able to draw a line that isn't arbitrary, but I will stick to my argument that a substantially older man or woman sexually involved with a teenager is an unhealthy situation, and more than likely a predatory one.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Ic, my mom was twenty when they got married. Does it make a difference that my dad was my mom's RA?
I certainly wasn't comparing my parents to the news story. What the teacher did was wrong. I'm just presenting a counterexample to (what I think) are some overzealous claims in this thread.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I stand by the claims I have made. Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I think there is a fundamental difference between how women view sexuality and how men view it. I've often seen that teenage boys view sexual partners (or conquests would probably be a more appropriate terms) much like baseball cards: the collect them and brag about them to their friends, and thus, managing to catch an older woman would be seen as the grand prize, much like [insert name of famous baseball player here] rookie card would be.
I think there is much truth to the opinion that male teenagers having sexual relations with an older woman are far less likely to feel like a victim than in situations where the gender roles were reversed.
However, this still doesn't make it morally acceptable.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Icarus posted :
quote: I'm sure you do feel okay about it, treason, but I wonder why your twenty-four year old boyfriend felt more comfortable dating and bedding a child barely more than half his own age than finding a date among his peers.
I think you are giving him motives that he may simply not have had. I don't think he was more comfortable dating me than an older woman. We met, fell in lust with each other, fell emotionally for each other and that's it. Why must you assume it's because he wanted a "child"? It's possible he just wanted me.
I'm not saying the laws should be changed. I just think it would be nice if they were more flexible to take into account the circumstances. I just don't think the younger person is always a victim.
[ November 23, 2005, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Treason ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Treason,
Did you share the joy of your relationship at 15 with your parents? If so, what was their reaction, if not, why not?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Or, only if you consider sex below the age of consent with a person in a position of influence and responsibility inherently harmful.
See, I think the second part is more important than the first part.
If a college professor sleeps with one of his students, it's legal, but still an abuse of power. It's using your influence to get sex that I have a problem with.
-----
The other thing is that age of consent is very much arbitrary. In Hawaii it's 14, in Mississippi it's 16. I don't like the idea of something this serious being different state to state, although I know that's the best way to do it,
-----
The final thing is this: guys and girls are different. This is a case where acknowledging that fact might help.
I had a lot of female friends that lost their virginity at that age, most of them to their boyfriends. Most of these boyfriends were Seniors (18 and 14). From the stories the girls told me at the time and what I now know, I think about 5 of these cases could legitimately be not just statutory, but actual rape had the girls known enough about it. Just instances where the guys had pushed more than the girls were willing, and then once it was done the girls claimed they were so happy to get it over with, they really loved what's-his-name, and they were gonna be together forever -- to cover up their shame (IMO).
I'm not saying this was widespread, or even typical, but it happened a lot more often than anyone would care to remember.
Guys, for the most part, are a mass of raging hormones wrapped in a skin covering. Some control it better than others, but a lot of them spend the years from 14-26 trying desperately to sleep with any girls who'll let them.
That's why it's not as serious, to me, when the guy is underage and the girl isn't. If you take advantage of an underage guy, you're likely giving him what he was trying to get anyway. I'm not nominating you for teacher of the year, because it's a gross abuse of power. But I think she should be fired, not prosecuted.
If you take advantage of a girl in this fashion, you'll likely do serious, lasting psychological damage.
I think both cases are bad, just one is "wrecked my car" bad and one is "accidentally shot someone" bad.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Boys can be victims of rape, though. And they too can have lasting psychological damage from it.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
OK, I'll admit that I have not read this entire thread (I have read both articles and watch the video clip on the first one). I just couldn't keep reading that many of you, some of you minors, condoned her behavior. While I agree that a nine year age difference is not a big deal when you are talking about a 30 year old with a 21 year old or even 18 and 27, sex between a 14 and a 25 year old is not just illegal, it is immoral.
Of course young boys fantasize about some of their prettier teachers but that doesn't make it ok for those teachers to have sex with them just because they are young and pretty.
In the artical, the ex-husband says she was being treated for mental problems before the arrest, and that seems reasonable to me. I teach middle schoolers and the thought of having sex with any student is disgusting. You'd have to be nuts, period!
And it is not just the age difference that was disgusting. That teacher, by occupation, is a dominant power over the student, so anything she does is authoritarian. You can say the boy had a choice and he certainly does but when someone with power over you, that you like, asks you to do something, illegal or not, you are more apt to do it. It shows weakness on the part of the boy. This is not a "boys will be boys" thing either. She is sick and used her power inappropriately.
And just for the record, I think they should have thrown the book at her. This probation thing would never have happened with a man! Ugh!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Theaca,
I agree completely. But this wasn't one of those cases.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Oh. Well, how will you know when it is one of those cases?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hate the characterization of guys here. Guys don't care when they are being used? They don't care about the person or thing they are having sex with, as long as it is pretty? It is more important that your first sex partner be hot than she be sane?
I don't believe any of the above. I know there are hormones at work, but triumphing hormones at the expense of self-respect will not make any person happy.
She was using him. That has to hurt - if it doesn't now, it will when he realizes it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Treason,
Did you share the joy of your relationship at 15 with your parents? If so, what was their reaction, if not, why not?
A relationship doesn't require the parents' permission to be okay.
I'm not saying that this particular relationship was or wasn't okay. I think fifteen is too young for sex, honestly. I'm just saying that parents disapproving of it doesn't make it wrong.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hmm. I supp[ose I had the good fortune never to meet any of those slavering, selfish, slave-to-their-raging-hormones beasts you describe. Perhaps it was because those guys go for the boobies, or perhaps it is an unfair generalization to describe all boys between 16 and 25 as manipulative rapists. Maybe it's just me, but I knew many boys who were willing to outrageous things for me, like offering to hurt people for me and stuff. Maybe I attract submissive males. I really don't know.
I will say that hormones rage in both directions. Pain is an issue, but once that is out of the way, I think the pleasure-seeking requires the females to be a bit more manipulative. Same impulses, though. Femmes just have to be wilier.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
If they raise the age of consent to 21, a whole lot of perfectly innocent people would suddenly be rapists and sexual predators. Funny, isn't it, how a legal fiction can turn into a moral reality in the eyes of some.
I've met twenty-somethings who have all the maturity and worldliness of children. And I've met teens who might just as well be adults.
An 18 year old boy was elected mayor of a city. The image that brings to mind is very different from the image I got when I saw a video clip of the young mayor in action.
The law is supposed to be objective, yes. But that doesn't mean it should ignore all context and be applied without brains.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Oh. Well, how will you know when it is one of those cases?
Ummm, when the guy has sex forced on him.
And katharina, I don't know if you're directing that solely at me (I don't think you were) but I was careful not to characterize all guys. I'm not qualified to speak for any guys other than me.
What I did do was provide anecdotal evidence from my own high school experience. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a guy who has sex with his teacher more than once would fall into the hormonally charged category. Guys, no matter the hormones involved, can always say no. I was one of those guys, and I got made fun of for it. It didn't really bother me then, and it doesn't now, but the point is that we're not all slaves to our hormones. But anyone who wasn't a teenage boy has no idea how tortuous that experience can be.
I think if the teacher'd picked a student with morals she'd have been rebuffed. Girls know when guys want them, let's be real. She probably took advantage of this guy because he made it obvious that he would welcome being taken advantage of.
If I had a car, and a girl used me to get a ride to school when all I wanted was to pull up at school with a pretty girl in the car, I don't know whether I would care that I was being taken advantage of. After all, I'm using her right back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe my experience is misleading, but in every relationship I've ever seen where a mid-twenties+ guy was dating a high-school girl (I never saw the reverse), the guy was a sleazy loser looking for a girl who, if he waited eight years for her to be the age he was when he started dating her, would be totally out of his "weight-class", as it were.
I've heard that from both guys and girls who have even been in such relationships.
Yes, there are exceptions. There are exceptions to pretty much every rule in the world. But, you know, pretty much everyone knows about these thoughts, too. There isn't a guy in America who doesn't know, "Hey, this girl is really young for me," and the reverse as well. That's why it's not unfair to make assumptions, because a) they're usually right, and b) the parties invite such assumptions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Treason,
Since you brought it up, I'll bring up the most obvious response.
My first question normally would be, "Would you make that same choice again?" but apparently you would, so I'll skip that one.
What would be your reaction if you learned your fifteen-year-old daughter were having sex with a twenty-four year old man?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Bob, My mom thought he was 18 and his parents thought I was 18. When my mom found out she was pretty upset. Nor do I blame her. To answer Rakeesh's question at the same time, If I had a 15 year old daughter and found out she was sleeping with a 24 year old man I would be livid. I would want to kill that guy.
That just makes sense because I wouldn't be the one in the relationship. I wouldn't know that my daughter was really ok. From the outside, I could apply all sorts of horrible motives to the boy.
That still does not make it a wrong or bad relationship in this case. I am left with no awful memories, no psychological damage, no pain from this. Only I can judge now if this has hurt me and it has not.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmmm, I have a story here. As most of you know, I went to a community college when I was a teen. The guys I hung out with, from both class and the tutoring center (with some overlap) were all 21-22. A more gorgeous collection of science geeks would have been hard to find, and I admit I did my share of looking at several of them, though none did any looking at me. I was 16.
In that group from calculus and physics, was a 22 year old guy, dating a 16 year old (not me) and a 20 year old guy, dating a 29 year old.
The latter relationship lasted much, much longer than the former. Not terribly surprising. However even the 16/22 relationship lasted at least a year and a half. Her her parents were completely approving of the relationship. We teased him, when he went to her junior prom. But even with the teasing, he took it with integrity as it were. Not in a sheepish ashamed manner, but in the way of "I love this woman, and I want to be with her, even if it creates a socially awkward circumstance for me."
I admit when I first found out he was dating someone my age I did a double take. But, we were (and still are) friends, so it didn't seem incomprehensible. And seeing them interact, it was a relationship of equals in many ways.
They met at a mutual friend's party and he didn't know how old she was to begin with. She was one of the youngest at the party, but he didn't know it, and the general age range was 18 and up. Knowing that part of his social scene, it's entirely possible he didn't know how old she was when he first slept with her. I don't know for sure, it wouldn't surprise me either way. At the time they met they were in a situation as social equals and neither were virgins.
Either way it brings up an interesting point. In a socially egalitarian situation are you obligated to card, before you sleep with someone? Looking at her physically, you would have guessed her to be anywhere from 18-23. 16 would have been an extremely young guess. Seeing them as a couple, you wouldn't have guessed the age difference either.
He genuinely loved her as a person, as a woman. He may have had her on a bit of a pedestal, but it wasn't a pedophillic pedestal, more of a pedestal of ideals and character. He thought she was "the one", though anything permanent was only in the hazy distance. In the moral code of that social circle, his intentions were honest, and her parents recognized it. He was a good guy with direction and a future, and would have been a good socioeconomic match for their daughter.
In the end, she broke up with him because she felt she wasn't ready for a long term relationshp and he suffered a pretty badly broken heart. I don't think he even misjudged her maturity level. I think she had the maturity to see that she didn't want a long term relationship at that moment and broke it off, before he could have been hurt even more.
In the case of the guy with the "older woman" I think there were more people concerned and upset on the guy's behalf, about the woman taking advantage of him because she had a 6 year old child, and was somewhat involved with another guy. In the end though she did extricate herself from the other guy (not the kid's father)and the relationship lasted for 4 years to my knowledge, before I lost track of them.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Interestingly, as a result, of those experiences *I* thought I would end up with an older guy. I was the baby in all of my college classes, since I was three years ahead of my age. And most of the guys I hung out with were older than me. Steve and I are only 6 months apart in age. However, regardless of my own age, no guy younger than 21 has ever interested me. I do think there is a bit of a maturity switch that does flip in many guys heads around 21-22.
AJ
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, my brother-in-law dated a 16 year old senior when he was... in college, anyway. I don't remember the exact age difference, but it was 5 or 6 years. He was serving coffee at the church cookie chat after the services, and the girl's mother was the one who told her to 'check out the cute guy'. He looked younger than his age, and still has a very boyish appearance.
They dated very seriously for quite a while. She graduated hs and went to college where he was. I think the major appeal for her was having the cache of an 'older guy' to look out for her. He loved her, but she wasn't in his league in attractiveness or brains. She dropped hints about going to look for rings and when he did it, she dropped him like a hot rock for someone closer to her own age.
And HE was made out like the bad guy, simply because he was older. It is completely possible to be a manipulative, psycho beeyotch even when one is under legal majority. Ron and I met her several times and neither one of us could stand her, though I sort of stood up for her with the excuses "she's young" and the hopeful prophecy "She'll mature." Oy.
My poor brother-in-law was very honest, earnest and religiously devout. He ended up in a bit of controversy (which she stirred up) at the church they had been attending near the college as well as the one their parents attended here. Very nasty, and very sad.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
From 17 to 22 I worked in a small, relatively slow fast food place. Because it was so slow, my coworkers and I all got to know each other pretty well, and quite a bit of dating went on. When I was 17 I went out with a woman who was 23 or so. It was a disaster that lasted precisely one date (who knew that she wouldn't be fascinated to hear all about Norse myth? Certainly not 17 year old me. 17 year old me). I wasn't victimized, although my feelings were hurt when I found out what a horrible time she'd been having, on toward the end of the date.
When he was 22 a friend of mine who also worked there dated a 16 year old co-worker. She was definitely the one with the power in the relationship. She was far more experienced with men than he was with women, was probably of a similar level of maturity to him, pretty much ran the show, and eventually ended it. Looking back at it, I don't feel that she was in any way a vicitm in that relationship.
Because it was an atmosphere in which people in the 16-25 age range worked closely together, doing the same jobs, age differences kind of melted away into insignificance for us. Instead, people kind of self sorted into social groups by maturity level.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Treason,
quote:To answer Rakeesh's question at the same time, If I had a 15 year old daughter and found out she was sleeping with a 24 year old man I would be livid. I would want to kill that guy.
Why would you be livid? I'll do a bit of asked-and-answered here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd be livid because you know based on your greater experience of the world in general and relationships in general, from your own experience in both and your observations, that the formula 15yr.+24yr.+romantic relationship=BAD. You would be livid because you know that in most cases, those sorts of guys (or girls if they're the older party) are generally abusive, manipulative, predatory personalities.
One does not have to be a date-raping handcuff-loving criminal to be abusive, manipulative, and predatory, either.
And chances are, you'd be right to be livid. I think you'd be livid because it says something about the 24 year old that they're even looking for a relationship with someone still in middle-school. I mean, it's just a difference in how your radar is working-and where one keeps that radar set says a lot. The same applies even if the older party didn't know how old the other one was, and later finds out.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Treason, your reaction is not necessarily typical of that experience. In my case, I was 15, he was 28. My parents didn't know -- they trusted him as a guardian over me, not as a sex partner -- it was definitely predatory. I often wonder what my life would have been like if I'd never met him, because knowing him made such a huge impact I'm not sure I'd even recognise my life without those memories. Were they 100% bad? No. I gained some very positive things from our relationship -- the non-sexual part. But there are memories and attitudes about sex and relationships directly connected to my relationship with him that I think I've only been healed of in the past 5 years. I'm 37.
I wasn't the last, though I think he stopped preying on young girls before he hit forty. He died last year, and there's a part of me that is glad. Very glad.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It's somewhat of a family tradition in our family for spouses to be very different in age. My grandmother was 10 years older than my grandfather, and my brother is 10 years younger than his wife, to give 2 examples. In both cases they're perfect for each other, and I can't imagine either of them marrying anyone else.
Definitely teachers shouldn't be in relationships with their students, nor bosses with their employees. Any relationship of power has the potential of being abused. And nobody should be in a serious relationship before they're mature enough to make permanent lifelong decisions, either. Of course I think there should be no question of sex before marriage in any case.
But given those things, it seems to me that ages don't matter. Each person is different, and if two people are right for each other, age is one of the least important factors (such as culture, religion, worldview, education, interests, approach to finances or childrearing) that can cause potential difficulties in a marriage. I never heard of any problem due to age difference arising in any of the marriages between people of very different ages in my family. Plenty of disagreements over other things have had to be worked out, :-) but nothing that seems age-related.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Sometimes age is irrelevant, I agree with that. My parents had a huge age difference. When they married, my mother was 19 and my father was 30. Both had been married before, and in some ways my mother had significant power in the relationship. It ended up being abusive, yes, but it was my mother who forced the issue of marriage.
Me, I was sheltered. Mostly by myself as opposed to my family, but still sheltered. I was always much more comfortable with the younger men. My husband is younger than me, by less than two years, but was much more socially savvy than me when we met. Power was never really an issue. I relied on his judgment a lot, but I also knew he would move heaven and earth to please me. I tried not to abuse that knowledge.
In any case, age and maturity are not always equivalent.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
No, they're not.
The thing that stinks is that, legally, there's not a better way to determine maturity than age. That's why we have an age of consent, an age to drive, vote, and drink (in that order). So it makes it difficult to make the necessary allowances on a case-by-case basis. Not that any are necessary in this case.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I saw yet another link on world net daily about a teacher sleeping with her student.
Does anybody else think that there are some enterprising young students out there making some false accusations because of all of the recent news stories on this subject?
I just don't believe that this is THAT common.
And to comment on the current thread of conversation... yes, there may be instances where a relationship actually is healthy between a young teenage girl and an older man--but they're rare. The law is there to protect the other 99.9% of children in the bad sort of relationships. Anyway, if an older man REALLY loves the younger girl for who she is rather than her age, then he should love her enough to let her GROW UP and date other boys without adding the complications of a relationship with an older MAN.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Rakeesh- I said
quote:That just makes sense because I wouldn't be the one in the relationship. I wouldn't know that my daughter was really ok. From the outside, I could apply all sorts of horrible motives to the boy.
That still does not make it a wrong or bad relationship in this case.
That's my answer. I am not saying it's always great or even usually great. Heck I'm not saying it's great 50% of the time! All I was saying was that in some cases, there is no victim and the laws should take that into account.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: I just don't believe that this is THAT common.
I'm afraid it is getting more common. As every other barrier prohibiting extramarital sex is falling, some people never learn how to control themselves. Boundaries are being pushed further and further back, and some people don't even know where the boundaries are anymore. They might SAY they know; if you talked to them they'd say they knew sex with a student was wrong; but when the time comes to control their hormones, if they've never done it before, they'll have a hard time convincing themselves that this time it really matters.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think it is most definitely unfair to assume someone is being predatory simply because they have a relationship with a much younger person. However, it should be noted that, at least as far as I know, the law does not ban such relationships. It bans sex in those relationships, and related acts, but it doesn't ban relationships themselves. I don't think it an unreasonable request to demand that you resist having sex with someone for a period of time, for the good of that person - and your inability to do so could probably be taken as a fair sign that either your motives may not be pure or you are dangerously lacking in self-restraint.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Treason,
I had a friend in highschool who was living with a 32 year old guy when she was only 16. She would've done it whether her mother was okay with it or not. But I have to say it was all very weird, all things considered. She was fine with it. Her mother MUST'VE known, and at least refrained from calling the authorities.
This was while we were students in Catholic school by the way.
Just weird.
Anyway, she was obviously fine and managed her life okay.
I had another friend who was getting piano and sex instructions at the age of 14 or 15 from her teacher. She was also fine with it.
I know that her parents NEVER knew about it and they would most definitely have had the guy arrested. But hey, she was fine with it and is a seemingly well-adjusted adult today, so what's the big deal, eh?
To me, the big deal is that under the age of consent in whatever part of the world one lives in, you are still your parents responsibility, AND, the relationship is NEVER equal if only for the simple reason that the adult is breaking a law and the child is not, even when both of them view it as "healthy" and "consensual."
While it might be nice to think that there should be individual treatment by the law in such cases, that's not how laws work. That's how courts work. It's just not credible to say that the 15 year old ISN'T a victim because she testifies that she isn't.
The only way I can possibly see this working where it wouldn't just throw the whole legal system into a paralytic state would be some sort of parental consent. If the couple were able to get signed parental consent forms to have a sexual relationship, then I could see where the law would, perhaps, have a clause to essentially look the other way.
But there already is such a clause. It's called parental consent for underage marriage. And what'd be so wrong with that? I mean, if this couple is so ready to act like adults, why don't they get married, and be up front about it and have the parents' blessing?
So, short of getting the parents consent to marriage (or the teen becoming an emancipated minor), I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that people should just get arrested and have their day in court. If the judge becomes convinced (somehow) that a person below the legal age of consent actually should be treated as a consenting adult, then I'm happy to not call the defendant a rapist.
Short of that, however, it's a crime and one that I think should be punished.
Ultimately, I'd only have one further thing to point out to the "oh so adult" 15 year olds involved in these relationships. Have you ever once stopped to think of the consequences to your partner should the two of you get caught? It's not you who will go to jail, or be treated for the rest of your life as a sex offender. It is the "partner" you supposedly care so much about.
Think on this. That person knows that they could face a long jail sentence and a life-time label as a sex offender. This includes the likelihood of having to register with local law enforcement every time he moves ANYWHERE. And that means being on a publicly available list that is posted on the internet and searchable by anyone. That will follow that person pretty much forever.
In view of that risk, why would a sane and "normal" adult pursue such a relationship? The consequences for his young partner are also fairly devastating should the relationship come to light. But he isn't thinking about that. The consequences for his future are devastating but he isn't thinking about that.
It'd be wonderful if in all (or even most) of these cases the reason for the continued behavior is something romantic like "love conquers all" or "love knows no boundaries." But, really, it's most probably that the person has a problem. They are attracted to very young women, or they are emotionally immature, or they feel the need to mold a person to their specifications rather than work at a relationship between equal partners, or they only get excited if there's an element of danger involved. The list is long and sad.
Mixed in there is a vanishingly small minority of cases where the young person is truly adult enough, and the partnership between the people is "healthy" despite one of them being legally still a child. How could ANYONE expect the law to respect that tiny (and perhaps even non-existent) possibility?
And I'll ask one final question. Why couldn't he wait for you? If this was really about love, and not sex, 3 years is not long to wait. Or, if the two of you couldn't wait, why not be up front and ask your parents for their consent to marry?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But there already is such a clause. It's called parental consent for underage marriage. And what'd be so wrong with that? I mean, if this couple is so ready to act like adults, why don't they get married, and be up front about it and have the parents' blessing?
Um. Just because someone wants to engage in a sexual relationship, that doesn't necessarily mean that the two are ready to be married.
I don't subscribe to that attitude myself, but I don't see it as being an issue in others. If people want to have sex in unmarried relationships, heck, even if people want to have casual sex, as long as they're safe and responsible about it, I don't think it's a problem.
Again, as I said, I'm not a fan of fifteen-year-olds having sex. I just don't think the choice should be "either don't do it, or get married."
Also, just for another underage/legal age dating story, my brother's girlfriend of eight months is fifteen (unless she's turned sixteen by now; she was fifteen over the summer). He's a freshman in college who comes home to visit her every weekend, sends her flowers, and is generally as "in love" with her as an eighteen-year-old boy can be. She, on the other hand, manipulates him, yells at him, curses at him, involves him in her abusive family problems, and tries to make him jealous at every turn by telling him about how she goes out to dinner wiith all these "hot guys." He puts up with it because he honestly cares about her (why, I don't know), and he treats her very, very well. As far as I know, they're not having sex, but I would be absolutely horrified if they did, and my little brother was subsequently labeled a sexual predator.
Also, my parents are ten years apart. And I believe my father was my mother's boss when they met. However, there's never been a power issue between them. My father is absolutely devoted to my mother, which has resulted in me being subjected to him going on and on about how wonderful and smart and beautiful she is whenever he gets the chance. My parents are awesome business partners, too.
-pH
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Bob- I never wanted to marry him, we weren't in love! We cared for each other, yes. Even at 15 I knew better than to think I was in love with him. What would be the point in waiting when we didn't love each other?
My whole point was, at the beginning, that these things should be looked at on a case by case basis. I don't think you should just let someone go who commits this crime but I believe the sentencing should be made greater or worse depending on the case. I just think it's silly to have a 19 year old on the "sexual predators in your neighborhood" website for sleeping with a 17 year old who was his girlfriend. Or for that matter, a 24 year old who dated a 15 year old who was happy and not at all harmed. I wouldn't have liked to see him go to jail as a rapist, when I most certainly was never raped.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pH,
pre-marital sex, or more appropriately, sex without commitment, didn't used to be even a small problem for me, let alone a big problem for me. That attitude has changed slightly because I have started to see the damage to people from it. And I'm convinced that sexual activity "too early" (whenever THAT is for the individual) is often a BIG deal.
I think adults are responsible for their own behavior, though, and so I don't even give sex between consenting adults a second thought. I mean, it's nobody's business unless they are married or were otherwise already in a committed relationship, and so hurt those they supposedly love most. But barring that, it's not an issue.
And assuming they act responsibly in terms of pregnancy and disease, it's not an issue.
Your brother's abuser, oops, I mean girlfriend...um, no, I mean abuser, is an extreme example of what I'm talking about. Suppose she gets angry or jealous. Is she enough of a monster to accuse him of having sex with her? He doesn't necessarily even HAVE to engage in illegal activity to be in a huge amount of trouble. And I'm betting that having to register as a sex offender while going to college is no fun either.
But that's an extreme example. That's OBVIOUSLY not a loving relationship. The girl doesn't care about him. She's counting coup with her friends in school by having a high-status boy to dangle. Well, probably that's what it's about.
My question is for the adult relationships formed by teens that involve zero risk to them (supposedly) and for which their lovers face a lifetime of the new scarlet letter. I have had a girlfriend who put me into a situation where I could be arrested. I was a dope and went along with it and it and luckily nothing happened. But still, I was old enough at the time to make my own decisions. I have since learned enough to know that our relationship was unequal, and I learned pretty soon after that incident that she didn't actually love me. She had intellectualized the relationship into some sort of learning experience for me. But I still thought of it as love. I was stupid.
And I've since learned more about love and, I think, finally know what real love in a committed relationship is. And it's not putting your lover in danger of being arrested...usually.
Now, I try to put myself in the shoes of someone who, as an adult, has an underage girlfriend or boyfriend. If it's all about casual sex and enjoyment of each other's bodies -- albeit in a "mature" and "responsible" way, I still have to ask -- where's the level of caring that at least says "hey lover, I enjoy the sex, but I really don't want to see you arrested and labeled for life just 'cuz our parts line up well."
If its about love (which is almost always what people say when engaged in these relationships), where's the caring "committment" to that other person enough to make sure you aren't going to be CAUSE of much pain and suffering in their life? Calling the law an ass in this case isn't going to stop the person from having to register as a sex offender. Maybe a judge would be lenient, but maybe he'll get the judge who isn't. Or they might live in a state with minimum sentencing guidelines. Will his young lover come to his rescue? Sure, maybe, if her parents let her, and the court agrees to hear testimony from a minor. But how many 15 year olds are likely to standup under even a mild cross examination? She could scream out her "adult" love for her adult lover and then what? Explain how she's doing in Algebra and when her braces will come off? Or perhaps the judge will simply ask her opinion of basic things that most adults have to struggle with daily and she'll show just how adult she is by not having a job, a check book, a debit card, or having to budget for all of her own expenses and so on, ad nauseum.
I've known lots of teens (including myself) who thought they were more adult than they really were. I've known not a single one who thought the opposite. It just goes with the territory to FEEL adult, and feel ready (for sex or whatever) and feel like the world is all askew in making you wait.
But what, really, is an adult reaction to the laws in these cases? Knowing that the consequences are severe, wouldn't an adult reaction be to take steps to avoid those consequences, no matter how much it "hurt" in terms of aching for the arms of that other person? It's not like they COULDN'T do something about it. I mean, they SAY they are truly in love, so why not go the marriage route.
But, sure since we know it's all about the great sex and NOT having a committed relationship, why doesn't the teen become an emancipated minor so she can have sex with her lover without putting him in jeopardy?
Could it be that she (or he) isn't thinking about the dangers to the other person? I submit that's probably the most frequent case. Teens don't worry much about responsibility as a general rule. That's in part because they aren't responsible. In this type of case, the child isn't the one facing jail or a lifelong label as a sex offender (and all the cr@p that goes along with that). It's their adult "partner."
And that's "okay" in the sense that the law doesn't expect a teen to be responsible for the adult's choices.
Ipso facto, the law doesn't respect the teen's opinion about the healthy nature of the relationship either.
In that context, what should a truly loving person do?
In that context, what would an adult do?
In that context, what do the two lovers do?
It's all so melodramatic, and tragic, and romantic. But is it an adult reaction to the truths of the situation?
So, to bring me completely full circle back to the beginning of this post, here's the small adjustment I would make to the attitude of anything between consenting adults is okay approach I have always taken. And that is:
Love and commitment are awesome and it's great to have that mutual feeling expressed in ALL facets of a relationship. Sex is a part of that, but by no means primary.
Sex is great, feels great, and should be engaged in freely. And it deserves to be treated with respect, as do the humans engaging in it.
I've known lots of people who have wonderful serial monogamous sexually active relationships. It works well for them. And it's probably healthier by a long shot than marriage without committment would ever have been. A LONG shot.
The ones I know are acting in an adult and responsible fashion, and I even see a degree of interpersonal caring there that is a joy to them and their friends and family. Even if the relationships don't end in marriage, they appear to be joyous and healthy. And so, who's complaining. Certainly not me!
But, is that EVER what is going on when a teen and an older person hook up? Is the teen so concerned about his/her lover that they do them the most basic favor and do what they can to keep that person out of serious, life-destroying legal trouble? Nope.
Is the adult stopping to consider the warping effect the news of this relationship would have on other relationships of their lover among his/her peers? Nope.
Getting back to the case that started this thread, I do think the greater sin here is abuse of authority, not the sex per se. But I keep remembering that silly woman who had a baby by her student a few years ago. They're married now. They say they love each other. Uh huh. Imagine their lives if they'd waited. They could freely make a fresh start NOW, and start making babies if they wanted them. And it'd be pretty much okay. At the very least, the law would be fine with it. Instead, they are starting life with (I think two) children, no prospects for a job in a position that she's actually trained for, and he's freakin' famous too in his community. Maybe they could go into porn and make a pile of money. I don't know. But it seems like if they actually wanted a life together and were concerned about each other and the children they are going to raise, they might've waited a couple of years.
Bottom line, to me, is that I have no sympathy for the adult partner and I have little respect for the teens' assertions of adult behavior. I'm shocked to see that I agree with Tres here. The very fact that they would engage in these behaviors proves that they aren't loving partners, but are "something else."
I extend that to both parties, the adult and the teen.
This ain't love. It's sex and "damn the consequences."
Sure, the rest of the world has it wrong, and they are that rare exception of a couple that truly does love each other.
Then prove it. Get married.
Or, they are the rare exception who can treat sex responsibly. Then prove THAT and wait until neither party faces such devastating consequences. THAT would be a demonstration of responsibilty.
This is just a demonstration of not being able to "stop oneself" from the overpowering influence of lust, um, I mean romantic love.
note to add:
By the way, I do know of men who got the same sentence that this woman got. In one case I know of, the girl was a runaway and had had more sex partners than she could count. She was VERY experienced, and world wise. She took up residence in a man's house because she needed a place to stay. One thing led to another. They had sex. Later, when she became a "problem" and he tried to get her out of his house, she went to the police and claimed he had drugged her (he didn't, they were "lovers"). But she was underage anyway, so he was "allowed" to plead to that and became a registered sex offender.
He is literally a sweet person. He was extremely lonely and vulnerable. He was also an idiot. Now, he's in love with a woman outside this country. He can't go there to be with her. The other country's laws bar him from immigrating because he's a registered sex offender.
My heart just aches for him. He truly does love this woman. But he can't move her to the states because his earning potential is severely limited due to having to disclose this felony on his record. There are just some places that will not hire him. She makes money where she lives, but he can't move there.
All because he had no sense, and was having great sex with someone who, ultimately, was just using him.
And because he ignored the applicable laws, of course.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:My whole point was, at the beginning, that these things should be looked at on a case by case basis. I don't think you should just let someone go who commits this crime but I believe the sentencing should be made greater or worse depending on the case. I just think it's silly to have a 19 year old on the "sexual predators in your neighborhood" website for sleeping with a 17 year old who was his girlfriend. Or for that matter, a 24 year old who dated a 15 year old who was happy and not at all harmed. I wouldn't have liked to see him go to jail as a rapist, when I most certainly was never raped.
But, the point isn't what you would've liked, but what the applicable laws were, and are.
Rarely does breaking the law result in changing it. Unless you were going to challenge it up to the Supreme Court level and this was all just a conscious decision to set up a test case, then your caring relationship was pretty unequal. You would go on with life no problem if you two had been caught and the police got involved.
He would be living with that label forever.
Seems stupid of him, and selfish of you, frankly.
But of course, nobody was thinking of that. It was just good fun and "nobody got hurt." Or if the law did get involved, it would've been society's fault for ruining his life, not your conscious decision to just break the law anyway.
I'm sorry, but he was an idiot to put himself at such risk. And I have to ask why he would do it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bob,
That's a point I hadn't thought of at all, the point of "what would happen" if either party were caught. Excellent point, very, very good. Honestly I was convinced before, but I don't see how anyone can regard the matter as anything but settled now.
What kind of relationship is it when one party is willing to put the other party that they "love" at risk of lifetime shame and possible jailtime? That's not adult romantic love at all, to my mind.
I think that ultimately my biggest problem with this issue is that despite a host of very reasonable "cons", people in such relationships almost always let the, "It makes me feel good, which means the law is wrong, so I should get to do it, " argument win the day.
Seconded, Icarus.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Hey, I'm convinced as well. Shall I jump on the Bob Bandwagon?
But then, to be honest, I wasn't ever convinced that underage sex was a good idea. My personal unwilling experience was that it was very, very, very, very bad and it scarred me. (Possibly for life, but then, since my life ain't over yet, I won't know for sure for a while yet.)
And yeah, I know I'm biased.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A former coworker lives with the sex offender label. He was 19, his girlfriend was 17, and it was entirely consensual but her parents found out and he was arrested. The parents later tried to drop the charges but by that time he had listened to his idiot lawyer and pled guilty, the court case continued anyway. He did 18 months and moved on with his life.
Except he didn't. He has to notify the authorities whenever he moves. He's gotten back together with the girl and married, had a baby girl, but because he's listed as a sex offender he can't pick her up at daycare or her school, nor can she have friends over if he's there. Most states do not differentiate between predators and offenders or alow for consequences. He's no danger to a child, but he can never again be alone with one if he's not the father.
This is the result of not waiting six months.
Not that plenty of people don't have underage sex and get away with it, but the risks you run will follow you forever.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
While I agree with your post Bob, I think there are blurry zones.
Personal experience - I was 15 (3 months before I turned 16, which is the age of consent here) and my then boyfriend was 17.
I did love him, and at that stage I truly thought I would marry him. I grew up, we grew apart, and I didn't marry him - I did stay with him for 4 1/2 years though. I don't regret that relationship for an instant, nor do I regret being sexually active in it.
However, with hindsight, I should have waited those three months. I should have at least made it legal - for my lover, if not for me.
**
I was thinking about the whole age gaps/maturity thing, and I think a big thing about it is what stage people are at life.
For instance, in my case both myself and my boyfriend were still at highschool - we were both in the same social setting and context. In my eyes, I see that as quite different from someone who is at college/university starting up with someone at highschool, or in the more extreme cases someone who has finished college and is a professional with someone who is in highschool.
I guess that comes down to influence and relative power in a relationship - when you are both at the same stage of life (more or less) it is much more likely to be an equal relationship.
***
And quid - *hugs*. I know you don't need 'em. But tough. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Incidentally, I think 18 is way to high for the age of consent.
But then, we drink at 18 here. Crazy screwed up laws! Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Chris and imogen, many states define statutory rape such that the necessary conditions are not just being below the age of consent, but a substantial difference in age. I think this is the way it should be. I think it's absolutely tragic and wrong that your friend is labeled a sex-offender.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
imogen: in several states, the age of consent is at least partially lower. For instance, its 16 in Indiana, excepting cases where one of the participants holds certain sorts of authority over the other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I will say that I think there's something quite different between a 15-29 relationship and a 15-17 relationship.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Bob -
quote: But of course, nobody was thinking of that. It was just good fun and "nobody got hurt." Or if the law did get involved, it would've been society's fault for ruining his life, not your conscious decision to just break the law anyway.
I'm sorry you think it would be society's fault. I tend to take responsibility for my own actions and don't blame them on society. I'm not going to follow the letter of the law at all times, and I am sure you don't either. That does not mean I don't accept the consequences when they come. Also, he was a big boy, he made his choice and he could take care of himself. I was not his keeper.
quote: I'm sorry, but he was an idiot to put himself at such risk. And I have to ask why he would do it.
Because I'm so damn SEXY!! Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
1. Dial in the sarcasm meter a bit.
2. If you really could look at it and say "oh well, my lover is now labeled a sex offender, but he's a big boy and knew the consequences when he started having sex with me," then I agree with you 100%, and I think you prove my point about the level of responsibility you felt towards him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Treason,
quote:I tend to take responsibility for my own actions and don't blame them on society. I'm not going to follow the letter of the law at all times, and I am sure you don't either. That does not mean I don't accept the consequences when they come. Also, he was a big boy, he made his choice and he could take care of himself. I was not his keeper.
But see, the consequences of your actions for you were essentially nil when compared to the consequences for him. Your consquences would've been some court for you and lots of lecturing to be sure, and some embarrassment that would soon enough be forgotten (or at least fade) with time and moving through the world.
For him, though, well first it's court-time, probable humiliation from friends and family, then jail-time, and a lifetime of humiliation, legal restrictions, and knowing that at any time someone could find his name on a sexual predator list and immediately jump to, "This guy is a child rapist!"
This will sound pretty harsh and rude I know, but you brought it up, so I have to ask. I don't think you've ever used the word "love" to describe this relationship. You were honest enough to admit first you two fell in lust with each other, and then began to care emotionally for each other.
Now. What type of emotional caring for someone is it to let them risk such horrendous consequences for the sake of lust? Sure, he was willing to risk those consequences, but you were willing to let him, and help him. Knowing he could horribly hurt himself and others. Knowing that the risk for him was grossly disproportionate to your own risk.
Let's say that you and some friends go out to a secluded area, it's the middle of the night, you know there's not gonna be anyone else driving around. He's legal, you're not, he buys some booze and you two drink it together. He decides he wants to go toolin' around in his car while you wait by the campfire.
The normal argument against drunk driving is that it's horribly dangerous to a bunch of people who didn't decide to drink and drive. But in this case, that situation doesn't exist. He's only risking himself. You're his friend. Do you give him the keys and let him start doin' donuts?
Or, as someone who cares for him and his well-being, do you say, "You're in no condition to drive, it's too dangerous, I won't give you the keys."
I realize this is blunt and potentially hurtful to say, but what kind of friend says, "Here's your keys, now go have some fun!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, there ain't any sex that's gonna let me risk prison time (prison time as a sexual predator, no less!) and the lifetime of stigma.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Bob- 1.Sarcasm meter seemed a bit high because I'm typing, not talking. I just got annoyed because you are making judgements about how I feel/felt and were being sarcastic about it. So, sorry for that.
2. You are very correct. I felt NO responsibility for him. The only person I'm responsible for is myself.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Rakeesh- I think the answer I gave Bob applies to your questions as well. Sure, if my buddy was trying to drive in that state I would stop them. They are in no way capable of making a reasonable desicion for themselves at that point. They're drunk. If they told me they were going skydiving, even though I think that's a silly risk and they might get killed, I wouldn't stop them. As long as their sober. To make it even more of an accurate analogy, if they were base jumping illegaly I wouldn't stop them. I might ask "Are you sure this is a good idea?" and try to tell them of the dangers. That's it. If someone I care about is impaired and unable to think for themselves, I'll help. Otherwise, they make their own choices.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
This issue is so personal for a lot of people that I can't possibly express my opinion without giving offense. I think I have a right to an opinion even if it gives you offense, but I reckon that there's no point in going back and forth on it anymore.
Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: And if the teacher had been male and the student female, do you think the teacher would be getting probation?
I think you are right. I think society subscribes to a double standard. When a young man, a.k.a. child, has sex, it is a badge of honor - even when the news reports the woman involved was a teacher or his mother or fifteen of his classmates. When a young lady, a.k.a. child, has sex, she is a tramp and sleezy and you probably know a whole boat load of terms. Even, technically, the term "rape" applies to acts forced upon a woman. I don't know that, according to the law, a male can get raped. Imagin some guy going to school and telling his friends the math teacher forced herself on him. The friends would probably respond, "Dude! Awesome! What was it like?! I mean, like, was she all over you an' stuff?!"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Even, technically, the term "rape" applies to acts forced upon a woman. I don't know that, according to the law, a male can get raped.
It's conceivable that in some state this is true, but in general I don't think it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If they told me they were going skydiving, even though I think that's a silly risk and they might get killed, I wouldn't stop them.
Not remotely the same thing. They don't need your help to go skydiving, and you literally could not stop them from doing it if you wanted to. What if they wanted to base jump illegally off of your structure? That's the closest, most accurate analogy.
It's one thing to permit a friend to do something you know is terribly dangerous and poses serious lifelong risks if they do it, if it's just them doin' it. But for your old boyfriend to do this, he couldn't do that without you. You were willing to have this relationship-despite caring for him-even in light of this horrible risk that was largely out of your control and his, once you started having the sexual relationship.
You're willing to actively help him put his life and freedom at serious jeapordy to suit lust. I'll be blunt, that's not an adult, non-harmful relationship.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Even, technically, the term "rape" applies to acts forced upon a woman. I don't know that, according to the law, a male can get raped.
It's conceivable that in some state this is true, but in general I don't think it is.
This certainly used to be the case but I'm pretty sure most (if not all) legislatures have amended the laws so rape is a gender-neutral crime.
I did a paper on this a few years back, but like I can remember the specifics. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:It's conceivable that in some state this is true, but in general I don't think it is.
I don't know how things work in the states, Icky, but in Canada only a man can rape. So a man can rape a man, but a woman can only have inappropriate sexual relations with a minor.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Rakeesh, Please stop telling me my relationship was harmful. Also, I'm removing myself from this thread because it's upsetting me an undue amount for an internet conversation.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer:
quote:It's conceivable that in some state this is true, but in general I don't think it is.
I don't know how things work in the states, Icky, but in Canada only a man can rape. So a man can rape a man, but a woman can only have inappropriate sexual relations with a minor.
I thought in Canada, rape was not a legal definition, but was replaced by sexual assault to cover all instances?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh:
"You're willing to actively help him put his life and freedom at serious jeapordy to suit lust. I'll be blunt, that's not an adult, non-harmful relationship."
So Rakeesh, let me pose this question to you in the abstract: Say a friend of yours wanted to do something in private, where only you and your friend would know. He needs your help for this activity. Now, let us also say that the thing he wanted to do was, technically, illegal. And finally, let's say that you were of the opinion that the law in question was immoral.
Would you allow your friend to engage in that activity?
I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
What really bothers me about this is not the assumption that any sexual relationship that breaks the age of consent law is predatory. It is the State's unwillingness to allow for possible mitigating circumstances. Even if legal guardians don't press charges, and the 'victim' clearly does not believe they have been victimized, in most cases the State presses charges anyway. Very few comparable laws work that way (assault, for instance.)
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I guess I always thought most (consensual) sex had some element of "love" involved, especially in young teenagers. Puppy love, idealized love, true love, love in a bottle of tequila, whatever. As such, caring deeply for another person and not wanting to put that person at risk seemed to me to be a given, especially for the female involved. So the idea that someone wouldn't care about their partner's risks of being labeled a sex offender just blows my mind. Hence I can't compare it to a situation like Dan_Frank suggests.
But OTOH, every time a couple who don't know each other very very well have sex without condoms and birth control they are putting each other at risk of pregnancies and STDs. Sometimes they do it KNOWING they have an STD. And yet this happens all the time. So I guess I really shouldn't be surprised at all. Being labeled a sex offender is just another risk, I guess.
I feel very sad about this concept. Sex involves a lot more selfishness than I really realized.
(Edit: and involves a lot of naivete, of course)
[ November 25, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
On another note, I don't think the double standard here is quite as clear-cut as people think it is (regarding the question of if it had been a male teacher and a 14-year-old girl).
What if it had been a 14-year-old boy with a male teacher?
I'm thinking there would have been jail time then, as well.
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
The "resource" (POLICE) officer at my high school got in major trouble for shoving his tongue down one too many girls' throats. He messed around with a few seniors and nobody told but then he tried to get with a slutty 15 y/o and she blew the whistle.
Thats just wrong
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But they were okay if he only did it with seniors?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Treason,
Well, I figured this would happen, so I'll stop talking to you about it. I'd just like to point out that you brought it up for the conversation, and were willing to use it to advance your own point. That would seem to make it fair game.
---------
Dan_Frank,
quote:So Rakeesh, let me pose this question to you in the abstract: Say a friend of yours wanted to do something in private, where only you and your friend would know. He needs your help for this activity. Now, let us also say that the thing he wanted to do was, technically, illegal. And finally, let's say that you were of the opinion that the law in question was immoral.
Would you allow your friend to engage in that activity?
I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
Your abstract situation falls apart on many counts. First of all, a sexual and romantic relationship between two people is rarely private. In my experience, almost never, and in all of my jr. high and high school experience, never private. At any time, a parent might ask, "Where've you been tonight, Jeff?" Or a friend of theirs might tell my parents, "You know where I saw Jeff last night? In a hotel with his teacher!"
Or let's say I'm not so discreet. I tell a friend of mine that I'm knocking boots with my smokin' hawt teacher after school. That friend doesn't inform the police, but that friend does tell another friend, who does. Or let's say the teacher gets pregnant. Or let's say it's a total accident-we're caught having sex in the car in a secluded area by a cop patrolling.
Second, it's not a one-time thing, either, so it's not as though the violation would be over and done with.
Third, "technically" crimes are illegal. That's what the law is, a bunch of technicalities.
Fourth, either the person needs my help to do this activity, or they don't. If they do need my help, I don't "allow" it, I help them do it. If they don't need my help, then short of informing the police, whether I "allow" it is besides the point.
quote:I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
I don't think anyone has made that point at all, or hinted at it. The point that Bob made first and that I and others have picked up on is one of grossly disproportionate risk. If you care for someone beyond a lustful interest, more than you care for your own happiness, why are you going to help them put their life at serious risk? It's one thing if you would share that risk, but you're not. By engaging in this abstract activity, you're only putting them at risk.
It calls into question the nature of the caring that goes on. It brings to the surface the point that despite what many of the underage boys and girls may say of their relationship with the adult, on their part at least, the level of caring is, frankly, not that of a responsible adult at all, but of a teenager.
And the law says that teenagers do not have full power over their own lives, because they do not have sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to assume responisibility for themselves.
And frankly, I don't think the law should be changed to protect the "sanctity" of teenaged "caring" for an adult. I mean, I never have, having had a younger sister who much older men frequently put moves on, but it's been years, and thinking about it again with Bob's point, I still don't.
quote:What really bothers me about this is not the assumption that any sexual relationship that breaks the age of consent law is predatory. It is the State's unwillingness to allow for possible mitigating circumstances. Even if legal guardians don't press charges, and the 'victim' clearly does not believe they have been victimized, in most cases the State presses charges anyway. Very few comparable laws work that way (assault, for instance.)
This is precisely the point. In full knowledge of this, the kid and the adult are still willing to have a sexual relationship and may even claim to "love" each other. I don't think it's an adult love that places the freedom, reputation, and livelihood so whimsically at the vagaries of circumstances totally outside either party's control.
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But they were okay if he only did it with seniors?
The seniors kept their mouths shut, dont know much more than that
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: The "resource" (POLICE) officer at my high school got in major trouble for shoving his tongue down one too many girls' throats.
quote: The seniors kept their mouths shut, dont know much more than that.
So that explains it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your abstract situation falls apart on many counts. First of all, a sexual and romantic relationship between two people is rarely private. In my experience, almost never, and in all of my jr. high and high school experience, never private. At any time, a parent might ask, "Where've you been tonight, Jeff?" Or a friend of theirs might tell my parents, "You know where I saw Jeff last night? In a hotel with his teacher!"
I have had wildly different experiences, clearly. The only time anyone (aside from the person I was with) ever knew I was having sex with anyone was when I told them. Neither I nor any of my partners have ever had the slightest difficulty keeping quiet, even when I was a teenager.
Certainly, a romantic relationship would be very difficult to keep private. But why would it need to be kept private?
After all, you said people in these situations should just wait for sex, right? That's all well and good. People in love can and do wait for sex all the time. But you're not actually telling two people in love to wait before they have any sort of romantic relationship, are you?
quote: Or let's say I'm not so discreet. I tell a friend of mine that I'm knocking boots with my smokin' hawt teacher after school. That friend doesn't inform the police, but that friend does tell another friend, who does. Or let's say the teacher gets pregnant. Or let's say it's a total accident-we're caught having sex in the car in a secluded area by a cop patrolling.
Wait, so your proof that it's an immature thing to do is to present a hypothetical immature person doing it? Yes, if you do not act like an adult, you should not be involved in an adult relationship. That's obvious, but unrelated to the age of the people involved.
quote: Second, it's not a one-time thing, either, so it's not as though the violation would be over and done with.
Well, are we talking about sex or romance? Certainly there could be situations where it is a one-time thing. But I will concede that it is usually not.
[quote Third, "technically" crimes are illegal. That's what the law is, a bunch of technicalities. [/quote]
Is your third point really just nitpicking at my word choice? Okay, sure, the law is a bunch of technicalities. And I'm sure you never diverge from any of them, right? You've never cruised a mile over the speed limit, driving competently, confident that technically you were speeding, but it would be wrong for a cop to single you out?
And you would never have oral sex with your wife in a state that outlaws it, right? Because that would be illegal!
I think what I meant was clear.
quote: Fourth, either the person needs my help to do this activity, or they don't. If they do need my help, I don't "allow" it, I help them do it. If they don't need my help, then short of informing the police, whether I "allow" it is besides the point.
Yes, I agree with that. So rephrase my question to "Do you help them?" Okay?
quote:
quote:I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
I don't think anyone has made that point at all, or hinted at it.
I will concede that I was wrong to guess at people's motives, and I apologize.
quote:The point that Bob made first and that I and others have picked up on is one of grossly disproportionate risk. If you care for someone beyond a lustful interest, more than you care for your own happiness, why are you going to help them put their life at serious risk? It's one thing if you would share that risk, but you're not. By engaging in this abstract activity, you're only putting them at risk.
Have you ever let a loved one drive to a nearby store for groceries, instead of taking it upon yourself to do so? Have you even helped them to do so, say, by finding the keys?
Do you have any idea how many people die in car accidents close to home?
I think it is fallacious to claim that, because there is risk involved (even risk on one side), it is immature or wrong to engage in an activity. As long as your partner is aware of the risk involved, you are not under an obligation to help them 'for their own good'. Dying in a car wreck is a lot more damaging to your future than even being labeled a sex offender. A lot more common, too.
quote: It calls into question the nature of the caring that goes on. It brings to the surface the point that despite what many of the underage boys and girls may say of their relationship with the adult, on their part at least, the level of caring is, frankly, not that of a responsible adult at all, but of a teenager.
I think my above point already addresses this. If you give your wife the keys to the car and ask her to run to the store for you, is your level of caring that of a teenager?
quote:And the law says that teenagers do not have full power over their own lives, because they do not have sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to assume responisibility for themselves.
I believe the law in question is morally wrong. I believe it is only factually correct insofar as we have molded our society with this expectation, and so we do infantilize teenagers, resulting in many teenagers unequipped to assume responsibility for themselves.
quote: And frankly, I don't think the law should be changed to protect the "sanctity" of teenaged "caring" for an adult. I mean, I never have, having had a younger sister who much older men frequently put moves on, but it's been years, and thinking about it again with Bob's point, I still don't.
I'm a little confused, since I don't think I used either 'sanctity' or 'caring' in my last post. Or, are those sarcastic quote marks? It's sometimes hard to tell online. Is your point that teenagers can't actually care about adults? ... By "adult" I assume you mean the legal age of adulthood, whereupon the magical maturity switch has been switched?
quote:
quote:What really bothers me about this is not the assumption that any sexual relationship that breaks the age of consent law is predatory. It is the State's unwillingness to allow for possible mitigating circumstances. Even if legal guardians don't press charges, and the 'victim' clearly does not believe they have been victimized, in most cases the State presses charges anyway. Very few comparable laws work that way (assault, for instance.)
This is precisely the point. In full knowledge of this, the kid and the adult are still willing to have a sexual relationship and may even claim to "love" each other. I don't think it's an adult love that places the freedom, reputation, and livelihood so whimsically at the vagaries of circumstances totally outside either party's control.
I have already addressed why this argument is fallacious. My closing point was actually just me expressing my distaste for that aspect of our legal system, and not meant to prove anything to you specifically.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan_Frank,
quote:I have had wildly different experiences, clearly. The only time anyone (aside from the person I was with) ever knew I was having sex with anyone was when I told them. Neither I nor any of my partners have ever had the slightest difficulty keeping quiet, even when I was a teenager.
Certainly, a romantic relationship would be very difficult to keep private. But why would it need to be kept private?
After all, you said people in these situations should just wait for sex, right? That's all well and good. People in love can and do wait for sex all the time. But you're not actually telling two people in love to wait before they have any sort of romantic relationship, are you?
Good for you. Discretion in sexual relationships at least as far as gossip is concerned is, in my opinion, a good thing. I realize this is all anecdotal, but think back to middle and high school. Was such discretion the norm? I think you'll find that very often, such discretion is not practiced, which was part of my point: that an adult in a sexual relationship with a minor is at a high degree of risk because people-especially teenagers-love to gossip about sex, and don't particularly care if the gossip hurts someone.
In any case there are many, many other ways totally outside of the adult or the minor's control that could result in exposure of the sexual relationship.
A romantic relationship is one thing. It implies some degree of love. While I must admit I think a romantic relationship between an adult and a minor would be very unseemly and usually distasteful to me personally, well that's my own particular prejudice, and if they committed to the adult decision of delaying pleasure, I would heartily respect that.
quote:Wait, so your proof that it's an immature thing to do is to present a hypothetical immature person doing it? Yes, if you do not act like an adult, you should not be involved in an adult relationship. That's obvious, but unrelated to the age of the people involved.
That was not my point at all. My point is that regardless of the maturity in all other respects of both parties, an adult engaging in sex with a minor is taking many serious risks that are completely outside of either party's control, because they "care" so much about each other as to have to have sex right now. That degree of needless risk-taking calls into question just how much the parties care for each other, because I do not believe it indicates a high, adult level of caring to potentially sacrifice your friend's freedom and lifelong reputation for the sake of a fleeting (although great) pleasure.
quote:Is your third point really just nitpicking at my word choice? Okay, sure, the law is a bunch of technicalities. And I'm sure you never diverge from any of them, right? You've never cruised a mile over the speed limit, driving competently, confident that technically you were speeding, but it would be wrong for a cop to single you out?
My third point I made was because of the quotes around the word technically. And yes, I break the law in the fashion you describe quite frequently (I usually set my cruise control to 31, 46, 41). But unlike an adult having a sexual relationship with a minor, the risks of being caught and the consequences of being caught are much smaller-cops don't pull people over just for that-and much lighter-you lose some money and get a point, if that. Probably just a stern warning.
Just because people may jaywalk is not a reason to endorse or excuse other lawbreaking. Some laws are obviously more important than others. Everyone knows that.
quote:And you would never have oral sex with your wife in a state that outlaws it, right? Because that would be illegal!
If doing so could put her in jail and label her a sex-offender, and let's say the state infrequently monitored our bedroom activities, no, I wouldn't have oral sex with her, because presumably I'd love her and would a) not want to lose her and b) not want her to risk so much for my sake.
quote:Yes, I agree with that. So rephrase my question to "Do you help them?" Okay?
Okay. No, I would not help them. I would not help a friend put their reptuation, livelihood, and freedom for the sole sake of a pleasure that could be delayed until a brief time passes that engaging in it no longer poses such risks.
quote:Have you ever let a loved one drive to a nearby store for groceries, instead of taking it upon yourself to do so? Have you even helped them to do so, say, by finding the keys?
Do you have any idea how many people die in car accidents close to home?
I think it is fallacious to claim that, because there is risk involved (even risk on one side), it is immature or wrong to engage in an activity. As long as your partner is aware of the risk involved, you are not under an obligation to help them 'for their own good'. Dying in a car wreck is a lot more damaging to your future than even being labeled a sex offender. A lot more common, too.
I'll be blunt, this is totally silly and irrelevant. First of all, unlike an adult having sex with a minor, grocery shopping is a necessity. You know, to eat and drink and not starve to death. Second, the risks are minimal and consequences occur only very, very rarely.
Your point here is just as ridiculous as an NRA fringe nut saying, "We need car-control because lots more people die in car accidents than from gun violence!" Unfortunately, car accident deaths are just a cost of doing business, so to speak, the price of living in modern civilization next to so many other people. If you walked to the store, you'd face similar risks. A bolt of lightning could strike and kill you.
No, your point about car accidents has no bearing whatsoever.
quote:I believe the law in question is morally wrong. I believe it is only factually correct insofar as we have molded our society with this expectation, and so we do infantilize teenagers, resulting in many teenagers unequipped to assume responsibility for themselves.
*shrug* It is my experience that teenagers are less mature, not more mature, than they think themselves to be, in almost any given situation, laws aside.
quote:I'm a little confused, since I don't think I used either 'sanctity' or 'caring' in my last post. Or, are those sarcastic quote marks? It's sometimes hard to tell online. Is your point that teenagers can't actually care about adults? ... By "adult" I assume you mean the legal age of adulthood, whereupon the magical maturity switch has been switched?
Yes, age of consent laws are arbitrary. Cost of doing business. But that's not my point. My point (Bob's originally) was to call into question the nature of caring in such relationships.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: I'll be blunt, this is totally silly and irrelevant. First of all, unlike an adult having sex with a minor, grocery shopping is a necessity. You know, to eat and drink and not starve to death.
Oh come on, there are plenty of ways around it. I know someone who orders all of his groceries online and rarely leaves his house.
Besides, what if you're sending her to the store for something frivolous, like a bottle of wine or a pack of cigarettes or a video rental?
quote:Second, the risks are minimal and consequences occur only very, very rarely.
What do you mean by rarely? People die in car accidents all the time, every day. I believe a surprisingly high percentage of those happen very close to home.
To actually disprove my point on these grounds, you would need to figure out the percentage of people driving to the store who don't get into a car accident, to the percentage of people engaging in sex with a minor who don't get arrested.
It's a pretty hard thing to quantify empirically. Anecdotally, I know many people who have had sex with people under the age of consent, and none of them have ever been arrested.
If you prefer, I can find another analogy other than the car. One people engage in a little less often but carries a lot of risk too.
The analogy is intentionally silly, but it is extremely relevant.
quote:Your point here is just as ridiculous as an NRA fringe nut saying, "We need car-control because lots more people die in car accidents than from gun violence!"
We have car control. And gun control. And too much of both, in my opinion. But that's another thread.
quote:Unfortunately, car accident deaths are just a cost of doing business, so to speak, the price of living in modern civilization next to so many other people. If you walked to the store, you'd face similar risks. A bolt of lightning could strike and kill you.
Yes. Absolutely right. So are you going to live in constant fear of your wife dying, and beg her to never leave the house for fear something could happen to her? We haven't even touched on muggers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, carjackers... the list of dangers goes on.
Rakeesh, every day you and your wife do things you didn't need to do, which placed your life in very real danger. It is part of being alive. Most of those things are not illegal, but they are much more dangerous than the sex in question. Because they could end in your death. And, we have already established that the simple fact that something is illegal does not, ipso facto, make it immoral or anathema. It just entails a specific set of risks.
quote:*shrug* It is my experience that teenagers are less mature, not more mature, than they think themselves to be, in almost any given situation, laws aside.
Which is why you see no difficulty in dismissing the nature of caring in their relationships, and scoff when someone points out that you exhibit the same 'selfishness' in your own relationship.
quote:My point (Bob's originally) was to call into question the nature of caring in such relationships.
I know very well what your point is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan_Frank,
quote:Oh come on, there are plenty of ways around it. I know someone who orders all of his groceries online and rarely leaves his house
Whatever. You will still, unless you're a total shut-in, need to leave the house sometime. Or a meteor could land on your roof. There are some risks that are, unless you want to modify your lifestyle to Howard Hughes-ish lengths, unavoidable.
quote:What do you mean by rarely? People die in car accidents all the time, every day. I believe a surprisingly high percentage of those happen very close to home.
You know what I mean by "rarely", I think. Incidentally that close to home bit probably has more to do with the fact that people are more often on the roads within a mile of their homes than anywhere else just because they're on their way home.
quote:To actually disprove my point on these grounds, you would need to figure out the percentage of people driving to the store who don't get into a car accident, to the percentage of people engaging in sex with a minor who don't get arrested.
No I don't. I just need to point out that there are methods of having sex with a minor that don't involve risking the freedom, reputation, and livelihood of the adult. Those methods, however, don't include breaking the law and complaining that the law is unfair and putting one party at risk anyway.
Stick to your "it's just like driving" comment if you like, but in the reality of most people in the USA, driving and leaving the home is necessary. Having sex with a minor illegally is not.
quote:It's a pretty hard thing to quantify empirically. Anecdotally, I know many people who have had sex with people under the age of consent, and none of them have ever been arrested.
And how many of those people were themselves under the age of consent, too? (Which isn't illegal in many cases.) And of those people, how many of them weren't being victimized or taken advantage of in some way? And of those people, how many of them had considered the risks and decided to remove the criminality, either by delaying the sex or taking some other course of action?
Anecdotally, of course.
quote:The analogy is intentionally silly, but it is extremely relevant.
No, it's not. Again you insist on obtuseness. The point of criticism isn't just that there's a risk, it's that it's an unnecessary risk that could be avoided by either showing a little restraint, or acting like an adult by getting permission, married, emancipated, something.
quote:Rakeesh, every day you and your wife do things you didn't need to do, which placed your life in very real danger. It is part of being alive. Most of those things are not illegal, but they are much more dangerous than the sex in question. Because they could end in your death. And, we have already established that the simple fact that something is illegal does not, ipso facto, make it immoral or anathema. It just entails a specific set of risks.
Well seeing as how no one has ever said that illegality does not equal immorality, I don't know when anyone ever bothered to establish that. Anyway, yes, it entails a specific set of risks. Unnecessary risks, risks which if the couple really did care so much for each other, they'd (probably) be willing to keep their hormones in check for just a little while.
quote:Which is why you see no difficulty in dismissing the nature of caring in their relationships, and scoff when someone points out that you exhibit the same 'selfishness' in your own relationship.
For the record, I'm a 24 yr. old bachelor who's never been married. I was just saying "wife" as a hypothetical-I should've been more clear. Anyway, that's not why I'm scoffing at the "selfishness" I hypothetically display in my hypothetical marriage. I scoff at it because in that situation, I wouldn't be displaying selfishness.
Wait, I guess I would be, since I'm not willing to live like an hermit who lives in a bomb shelter. Right. Good point.
Your argument is founded on two things. One, there's a risk in everything. Two, the law is incorrect. My argument is founded on this: if the couple cares so deeply for each other, why cannot they wait?
Don't say, "Why should they have to?" because that's not good enough. If you truly care for someone, you take account of how reality will affect that person. You try and help them and make them happy and protect them from harm. I do not see who in an adult-minor relationship is demonstrating a level of caring. I do see a more adolescent and/or lustful level of caring which is founded more on "I want desperately to be with you because it makes me feel so good."
That's only half of the equation, I think.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Driving contains risk, but there are different degrees of risk. You might get crippled. You might just get your car scratched.
If you are an adult in a sexual relationship with a minor that violates the laws of your state and word gets out, you will be marked as a sex offender for the rest of your life. The point so many here have made is that if you love someone you shouldn't be willing to jeopardize them in such a manner.
BTW - if you're a labeled as a sex offender you may be running out of places to live. Cities around the country are expanding the no-sex-offender zones around schools and parks wider and wider. Recently in my area a sex offender stayed in jail after he'd served his time because there was literally nowhere in the city he could live.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Your argument is founded on two things. One, there's a risk in everything. Two, the law is incorrect. My argument is founded on this: if the couple cares so deeply for each other, why cannot they wait?
You have indeed summed up my position rather well. Especially the first one. Whether or not the law is correct, the simple fact that there is risk involved does not make it a bad idea. Because there is risk in everything.
quote: Don't say, "Why should they have to?" because that's not good enough. If you truly care for someone, you take account of how reality will affect that person. You try and help them and make them happy and protect them from harm.
Forget driving, then. What about engaging in something exciting and fun which contains a very real risk of death? Perhaps some sort of extreme sport. Skydiving. Someone mentioned base jumping. These contain very real elements of risk. Even risk of death, not just lifelong humiliation and stigma. You say that if you care about someone, you should want to protect them from harm. Apparently, according to you, this even includes protecting them from themselves. It includes harm that they are aware of and willing to risk anyway. So why doesn't it extend to other areas?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me the only reason you're drawing a distinction is because in one situation, it happens to be underage sex, specifically, and in another it's not.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course all those examples also have age limitations. It's not the sex. It's the level of maturity and awareness of the consequences that's the limiting factor. While this level is different for everyone, expediency requires an arbitrary age limit to be set to protect the greater number of people.
And they are things that people do alone. The decision is totally and utterly theirs. Sex requires the consent and cooperation of two people (at least) and that means the responsibility for the risks is shared. I submit there is a difference between letting someone do something you know is dangerous and helping sopmeone do the same thing.
What exactly are you arguing for? Striking down all age consent laws? Looking the other way when teachers seduce their students? How should things change, in your view?
Here's mine: I believe all states should have age of consent laws. I also believe that those laws should include provisions for age gaps less than 2 years, and that individual cases should be able to apply for exemptions with the consent of the parents. I believe there should be levels of criminality so that sex offenders are not automatically lumped in with sexual predators.
In short, I agree that current laws should be changed but I think an arbitrary age must be set if only to give us a starting point. As you've been arguing with all-or-nothing logic I can't really tell how you would like the laws changed.
[ November 28, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
An arbitrary line is acceptable for laws - the real trouble is when such lines are used to draw absolute conclusions about a person's character. I do not think our society takes circumstances into account once you are legally labeled (or even accused of being) a rapist. Instead the assumption is made that that person is a monster or predator, no matter what the circumstances.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan_Frank,
quote:Because there is risk in everything.
This does not mean that, "It's too risky," is an insuffient objection to a given activity.
quote:Apparently, according to you, this even includes protecting them from themselves. It includes harm that they are aware of and willing to risk anyway. So why doesn't it extend to other areas?
Chris handles this nicely, and I think again you're being deliberately obtuse when you suggest that "protect them from themselves" is what I was advocating. There is a world of difference between, say, giving someone you love a shove out of the door of an airplane than watching them jump out themselves. You ignore the fact that skydiving, like driving, poses a host of risks which can be very, very seriously mitigated by the jumper.
The same cannot be said about an adult having sex with a minor, but you're deliberately not seeing that. The reason I question the amount and quality of caring that exists between an adult and a minor having sex is because, to me, it appears to involve caring for the self more than caring for the other, which is not what either party would say if you asked them in almost all cases.
You still have chosen not to answer my question. If you care for someone so much, if you love them, why are you willing to risk their freedom, reputation, and livelihood throughout their lives for sex? Again, don't say, "Why shouldn't they be able to?" and deal in reality when you answer, if you will.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:What exactly are you arguing for?
Actually, I haven't been arguing much on topic since I started. I am arguing with Rakeesh dismissing the caring in the relationships in question.
Chris, I really like your proposed solutions, by the way. I'd vote for 'em.
quote: If you care for someone so much, if you love them, why are you willing to risk their freedom, reputation, and livelihood throughout their lives for sex?
To be honest, I didn't answer because the question doesn't make very much sense to me. It seems to me the only way this question is answerable is if I have the same basic assumptions as you. Namely, that people in a relationship should care more about the risks involved in their activities, and less about what they both actually want to do. That it is somehow noble to sacrifice not only your own desires but also your partners, for their own good.
I just don't agree with that. I don't think anyone, in a relationship or not, has the right to override someone else's decisions for their own good.
To be clear, here is the hypothetical situation I am discussing.
Jill, 16 years old. Is in love with Jack. Is familiar with sex and would like to have sex with Jack, but would rather not get Jack in trouble.
Jack, 19 years old. Is in love with Jill. Is familiar with sex and would like to have sex with Jill. Is aware that that would be illegal and could potentially ruin his life.
Okay? That's the page I'm on.
Now, if Jack decides that he is willing to live with the risks, I do not believe it is Jill's obligation to stop him. That's not her responsibility.
I think that's where we disagree. Am I wrong?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
EDIT: Just ignore this entirely. It has way more to do with my frustrations concerning drugs and my apparent obligation to put up with people doing what I consider to be Ridiculously Dumb **** because, as Cartman would say, "It's my hot body; I'll do what I want!" than anything else.
I really do think that statutory rape laws need some tweaking.
-pH
[ November 28, 2005, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan_Frank,
quote:I am arguing with Rakeesh dismissing the caring in the relationships in question.
You're misunderstanding, again. I have not said there is no caring in such relationships, I have said repeatedly that I think the type of caring there is is by definition questionable.
quote:That it is somehow noble to sacrifice not only your own desires but also your partners, for their own good.
Well apparently you're putting a much higher value on "desire" than I am. In my book, putting "desire" ahead of safety and long-term well-being is by definition of questionable maturity and adulthood. Which is invariably a justification people in such relationships provide.
And I think it's very strange to suggest that someone doesn't have the right to override someone else's decisions when those decisions involve them.
quote:Now, if Jack decides that he is willing to live with the risks, I do not believe it is Jill's obligation to stop him. That's not her responsibility.
This line of reasoning considers only desire, only the short-term. You say in this situation there is a calm, reasoned consideration of the risks, but what it doesn't include is a calm, reasoned, adult consideration of the risks. Because adults, people who are as mature as people in such relationships claim to be, have at least a passing knowledge of something called "delayed gratification".
This is like the fifth time you've deliberately ignorned this. People in such relationships almost always say they love each other, or at least care very, very deeply. Why can't they wait, then? If they care so much, if it's not about lust and sex, wouldn't the relationship bear some delayed gratification?
Your response continues to ignore reality. "They shouldn't have to." "Driving is dangerous." "It's not his/her responsibility." The reality is that if caught, one or even both parties will face serious lifelong penalties to freedom, reputation, and livelihood. The reality is that the of the means of getting caught, many of them are entirely outside the couple's control. The reality is that people in such relationships claim to care for or even love each other very, very deeply.
To answer your question, yes, I think it's Jill's responsibility to "stop Jack" if she cares so greatly about Jack. If she cares so much for Jack, she should not be willing to help him take such a monumental risk.
If, however, she cares a lot about Jack but not in the way that he and she say they do, well, that's different. That's what I've been saying all along-that the situation demands the question.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I haven't ignored the fact that there are serious lifelong penalties for the behavior in question. Frankly, continuing to ignore the attitude of your posts is getting increasingly difficult.
To clarify: We have a very different view of adult relationships, and what they entail. We have a very different view of the value of delayed gratification.
And, it seems, we have a very different view of personal responsibility. If someone I care about wants me to help them take a monumental risk, and there is either no risk for me or I am comfortable with the risk on my side, then I will absolutely help them.
I don't see a resolution to this discussion any time soon. Do you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps my attitude is a reflection of quotes like this...
quote:If someone I care about wants me to help them take a monumental risk, and there is either no risk for me or I am comfortable with the risk on my side, then I will absolutely help them.
So would I. However, that is not an accurate condensing of the situation we're talking about. If a friend of mine wanted my help in taking a monumental risk that was unnecessary at the present time and if delayed for a brief time would then be safe, I would not help them.
Would you drive the getaway car for a bank robbery if you knew your buddy was going to be winning the lottery in three years?
Anyway, you're right. There isn't going to be a resolution here.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Does the sex feel better if she's more attractive? Are you more ashamed if she's not?
yes, and yes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'd think most people generally want to have sex with people they find attractive...
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Rakeesh,
I want to begin by saying that I agree with your side of the argument and personally would not purposely endanger the livelihood of a close friend for what I also feel is a very unnecessary risk. Despite my personal feelings on the matter, however, I still think Dan_Frank's perspective is completely valid, though perhaps a little foolish and reckless.
Consider how many people throughout history have risked and sacrificed their very lives for reasons or causes that they didn't even understand. At least in this situation, both people are completely aware of what the risks are and why they are willing to take that risk. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that even true love might display this type of reckless behavior. Why? Let me explain.
It all comes down to what a person values in life. For example, many people have adopted the "Carpe Diem" attitude.
What is love? 'tis not hereafter; Present mirth hath present laughter; What's to come is still unsure:
In delay there lies no plenty, - Then come kiss me, Sweet-and-twenty, Youth's a stuff will not endure.
They feel that each and every new day of life is its own miracle that should be treasured, appreciated, and used to the full, because even the best of plans cannot ensure anything beyond the present moment. They feel that coincidence, fate, destiny, or whatever can change the entire future that they may have planned for themselves. Who really knows that they will wake up tomorrow, or that they won't get into a life altering accident that night? Instead of living a lifetime of regret over a lost opportunity, they are willing to risk the possibility of a lifetime of pain in exchange for a moment and a memory that they can relive indefinitely.
I do feel that this attitude is, at the very least, a little foolish. But foolishness doesn't diminish the sincerity and caring and maybe even love that's involved. Is it a wise course of action? No. Is it understandable? Yes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Camus,
quote:Instead of living a lifetime of regret over a lost opportunity, they are willing to risk the possibility of a lifetime of pain in exchange for a moment and a memory that they can relive indefinitely.
I think that a couple that really thought of it in those terms, that's a bit different. But be honest. How many people overall, and especially teenagers, actually think like this? For most teenagers, the road to fulfilling their desire starts and stops at, "I want it." There are exceptions, true, but they're exceptions.
quote:I do feel that this attitude is, at the very least, a little foolish. But foolishness doesn't diminish the sincerity and caring and maybe even love that's involved. Is it a wise course of action? No. Is it understandable? Yes.
Obviously I think it's more than a little foolish, because the attitude you're describing will justify basically any pleasure because, like Dan says, people die in car accidents all the time.
But you're still missing the point. I'm not saying that such couples never really care for each other at all, or never really love each other. I'm saying that most couples if asked would say they love / care greatly for the other person which is why they were willing to take such great and terrible risks.
Well, they're the ones making the declarations, not me-so it begs the question. How much do they love / care for each other, and what kind of love / caring is it, really? Very, very, very few teenagers have a sense of their own mortality like William Shakespeare did, especially someone in the 16th and 17th centuries. Most teenagers (hell, most people) are convinced they're gonna live forever.
All of which begs the question that the couples usually invoke-of what quantity and quality is their emotional relationship?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:How many people overall, and especially teenagers, actually think like this? For most teenagers, the road to fulfilling their desire starts and stops at, "I want it." There are exceptions, true, but they're exceptions.
I completely agree with you here. That is why I wanted to point out earlier that I do agree with your side of the argument. That is why I personally feel that the possibility, the hope, the dream (even if it is never fulfilled) of living a lifetime, 10 years, five years, one month, or even two days with the person I love is not worth the risk of losing just so that I can fulfill an immediate desire, no matter how important it may seem to me at the time.
So I wasn't trying to say that you are wrong. I was just trying to create the exception that allows people like Treason and Dan_Frank to have the opinions that they have without suggesting that they personally are uncaring individuals.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with the exception. I have always believed that the exceptions may sometimes-perhaps even often-exist, and I take Treason and others who have been in such relationships at their word that the level of caring and emotional committment is serious in mature, simply because they were there-I was not.
That wasn't to my mind ever the argument, though. The argument was over whether or not such relationships beg the question I and others have asked.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Well then, I think we're in agreement. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by StickyWicket:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Does the sex feel better if she's more attractive? Are you more ashamed if she's not?
yes, and yes.
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'd think most people generally want to have sex with people they find attractive...
-pH
There is a substantial difference between what you said and what StickyWicket is saying.
There is a difference between saying somebody is attractive and saying you find somebody attractive. The first assumes some independent, concrete standard of attractiveness by which all people can be judged.
In my experience, people who hold and express such views are speaking specifically about judging people by their looks, and rarely acknowledge any other basis for attraction. For example, note the post I was responding to when I posted what SW quoted:
quote:Originally posted by J T Stryker: I want to state that when i was 14, I would have... Sorry, there is no delicate way of putting this... I would have cut my left nut off to loose my virginity to a woman as attractive as that one... I mean just imagine how many boys thought of this reading teacher as they lay in their beds drifting off to sleep...
He doesn't know anything about her other than what he saw in her picture. Do you care to argue that the sentiment he expressed does not exemplify the attitude I just described? It is apparently an empirical fact, with which everyone can agree, that she is attractive, based on a photo alone. Clearly, her personality, intelligence, maturity, sense of humor, etc., are irrelevant. Woman blonde. Want.
The kind of attraction described when you say you find someone attractive incoludes physical attraction, but acknowledges that all sorts of people are attracted to all sorts of things. Some guys like enormous boobs. Me, I actually prefer flatter-chested women. I don't like a lot of makeup. But a huge part of attraction for me, which the original statement does not leave room for, is for attributes beyond the physical. I find an intelligent woman more attractive than a well-proportioned one who is vacuous. I find a sense of humor incredibly attractive. Ditto for a caring personality.
If you believe that attractiveness is universal and concrete, part of the view you espouse must clearly be that some people are not attractive. To anyone. And that the people who claim to be attractive to them are liars. We can postulate reasonable motives for this. People sleep with partners who are unattractive because they themselves are unattractive, and so these empirically ugly people must "settle" for other ugly people like themselves, but would leave them at the drop of a hat if one of the beautiful people would grace them with some sexual attention.
I find the attitude inherent in the statement I responded to abhorrent.
quote: I'd think most people generally want to have sex with people they find attractive...
I think it's vanishingly rare that people have sex with anybody they don't consider attractive. At least, I'd like to. I'm sure it happens, but I can think of few things more disgusting than the concept of having sex with someone you are not attracted to. Therefore, I take it for granted that most people generally do have sex with people they find attractive. I think it's ludicrous to have to even discuss the point.
Stryker's point, and I interpret SW as concurring, though his post was not really substantial enough for me to truly know, seemed to be, as much as anything else, that it's very important that your friends (and peers) agree that your partner is physically attractive.
I hoped Stryker's post was in jest, and I responded, initially, in kind. The fact that I should have to explain myself makes me wonder, however.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Wow am I glad that a hot teacher didn't have sex with me when I was 14.
Not to belittle her crime, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the "victim" still considers that day the best day of his life.
I understand why the laws are there, and agree with their necessity, but forgive me if I don't shed any tears for him.
I agree. There is an asymetry between boys and girls, and sure it's possible that the boy considers himself raped, and if he does, we should take that consideration seriously, but I remember being fourteen and lusting after my hot teachers- and it was a lust as real and true as any lust I feel now- and I'll tell you now that on the face of it, I'm feel more jealous of him than I feel sorry for him. I'm not going to comment on her intelligence, humor, or maturity, but I'm thinking that she was smart, funny, and mature enough to make the experience enjoyable.
The asymmetry stands. Men are likely predators, and a woman, in the exact same relationship, is a likely dream come true. It's not that I don't think that its possible that 14 year old girls lust like fourteen year old boys, but when I was that age, I wanted to consensual sex like a mole wants to dig. To all of the women who posted on this thread about, did feel that drive in your bones? I gather not.
As long as she brought him along gentle-like, I'm fine with it.
[ December 03, 2005, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As a former 14 year old boy, I can agree.
As a future father of (potentially) a 14 year old ANYONE, I would hope for a different and better introduction to sex for a child of mine.
My wish would be for every person that the first time they have sex it is in safe and loving circumstances, with a person who first values them as a person, knows their mind, and truly appreciates the gift of that person's self in the world.
Of course, the reality is that the young person may be aching for a chance at sex to the point where they would consciously choose a horrid partner just to get the chance to rub up against another human being.
But I can still hold onto my dream, eh?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Men are likely predators...
I think that men who say things like that are speaking from their own memories and experiences, and projecting them onto others. Men are not inherently likely predators. Some men are. Some women are, in different ways (and sometimes in the same ways) likely predators.
quote:As long as she brought him along gentle-like, I'm fine with it.
It sounds like you would probably disagree with this, but I think it's obvious that this woman qualifies as a sexual predator herself, deliberately seeking sexual partners vastly out of her "weight class", so to speak. I'm not speaking about attractiveness, objective or subjective, I'm speaking about partners whom she will find it incredibly easy to hold the dominant status in the relationship. Parasites don't have to leave their host organism feeling wounded, after all. Sometimes the host organism isn't even aware the parasite is there.
Given that she is a sexual predator, I find your attitude that it's OK so long as she was a gentle parasite disturbing. For several reasons, first being that I doubt you'd be so sanguine about it were the genders reversed. Second, it relegates the boy in question to the status of cattle.
He was a 14 yr old boy. 14 year old boys are almost invariably pretty damn stupid, when compared to a cunning and clever adult. Just because the woman serviced him and left him feeling good does not make it 'OK'.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As to wanting the person you're with to be attractive to other people:
Maybe I'm shallow, but I definitely want the person I'm with to be attractive on some level to other people. I really do. And I suspect that I'm not the only one.
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I definitely want the person I'm with to be attractive on some level to other people. I really do. And I suspect that I'm not the only one.
It's certainly understandable to want the other person to be attractive, but I think the important question is whether it is necessary for a relationship to be successful. Does the level of attractiveness determine the how far the relationship can go?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think that men who say things like that are speaking from their own memories and experiences, and projecting them onto others. Men are not inherently likely predators. Some men are. Some women are, in different ways (and sometimes in the same ways) likely predators.
This is true. If were to every find my way to the bed of a high schooler, I'd be up to no good.
quote:Given that she is a sexual predator, I find your attitude that it's OK so long as she was a gentle parasite disturbing. For several reasons, first being that I doubt you'd be so sanguine about it were the genders reversed. Second, it relegates the boy in question to the status of cattle.
Of course I wouldn't be so casual about it if the genders were reversed. I think that the sexual drives of boys and girls are different. Sure, we can pretend that that's not the case, but I think that that's pretending. I don't know if he was treated like cattle. I'm thinking his dreams come true. You know, when I was 15, if I had a chance of having an affair with my attractive teacher or learning how to fly, I'm thinking I may go with the affair. You guys think it's impossible for this kid to have made concious decision to have an affair with her.
quote:He was a 14 yr old boy. 14 year old boys are almost invariably pretty damn stupid, when compared to a cunning and clever adult. Just because the woman serviced him and left him feeling good does not make it 'OK'.
It kind of does. When he is 80 years old, and he looks back at his life, I doubt he is going to think, "You know, one thing I regret in my life is that I slept with too many full breasted 25 year olds."
_______
quote: My wish would be for every person that the first time they have sex it is in safe and loving circumstances, with a person who first values them as a person, knows their mind, and truly appreciates the gift of that person's self in the world.
I'll settle for a safe and affectionate place.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have slept with men who were overweight, I have slept with men who were underweight, I have slept with one man in particular who was as close to perfect shape as I think humanly possible, with every muscle perfectly defined and beautiful. I have slept with handsome men and frankly ugly men. In every case I was highly attracted to them, and while there is a certain level of amusement in being on the arm of someone who makes everyone else in the room jealous, that has never been a deciding factor for me in picking a date or a lover. And when it comes to enjoying what happens in the bedroom, or anywhere else, there is no correlation whatsoever between conventional attractiveness and how good the sex is. Since so much of sex is psychological, a 14 year old boy might feel differently about that. But that is my experience.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Irami,
quote:If were to every find my way to the bed of a high schooler, I'd be up to no good.
I think that the sexual drives of boys and girls are different. Sure, we can pretend that that's not the case, but I think that that's pretending.
Well, you're not pretending when you're aware the kind of person who decides to seek out sexual partners in that sort of situation. In this particular situation, the gender of the older party is almost irrelevant. You've got someone who is seeking a sexual relationship with someone over whom they have major advantages in experience, knowledge, devotion, and power.
Rather like that thread we had discussing that book, Are Men Necessary I believe it was called in which among other things, it was speculated that men generally prefer to have the edge over their mates in all three categories.
The roles and motives which you assign men-we still disagree on that, by the way, your position implies that men are cattle, incapable of controlling their bodily impulses-are, in this case, almost certainly that of the older woman in this case.
She is, it has been said, physically quite attractive. Obviously she is neither shy nor unwilling when it comes to seeking sexual partners. Such a woman would have little to no trouble finding a partner whom was more in her league in experience, knowledge, and power. But she chose a 14 year old boy.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that the boy necessarily feels victimized or outraged. Quite possibly his reaction is the one you would have, and many men, including myself, have fantasized having. But that doesn't mean he wasn't victimized.
quote:It kind of does. When he is 80 years old, and he looks back at his life, I doubt he is going to think, "You know, one thing I regret in my life is that I slept with too many full breasted 25 year olds."
Hell, in a hostage situation, prisoners can develop Stockholm Syndrome in which they grow to love their captors. People go to astrologers all the time, and flush their money down the toilet. Such people might not feel victimized, either, but they still are, by major psychological manipulation and stress on one hand, and stupidity on the other.
You know, cows just love to chew cud, to stand around all day in the sun, to sleep, eat, drink, and defecate. Chances are they hardly notice that they're being milked or kept in cages, because the rest of the day, they're left to their own devices. The lucky ones even get to knock hooves with other cows to make baby cows.
But I had a hamburger for lunch today, Irami. No matter what that cow thought of his life, he was being victimzed. Which is fair enough, he's a freakin' cow. People should be different. People should not be expected or even encouraged, as you're suggesting with teenage boys, to dwell on, to thrive in their physical instincts. That's why we have houses and air conditioning and anti-biotics, so we don't have to do things like that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" And when it comes to enjoying what happens in the bedroom, or anywhere else, there is no correlation whatsoever between conventional attractiveness and how good the sex is. Since so much of sex is psychological, a 14 year old boy might feel differently about that. "
Its worth noting, Eljay, that for men, sexual arousal is much more due to visual stimuli then for women.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think enough men have posted that they don't use physical appearance as a sole/primary measure of attractiveness that that's too much of a blanket statement, Paul. Or, rather, I would say that when you are attracted to someone, they look good, and are visually stimulating, even if they do not necessarily conform to the conventional definitions of attractivness. Regardless, I was trying to take that into account with the last sentance you quoted, about so much of it being psychological. Sexual arousal seems to happen primarily in the head, whether that's from visual stimuli or wit and charming conversation. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It might be worth noting at this junction that I don't consider the males that post here (ir the females, for that matter) to be an accurate cross-section of humanity. Our common interest - the works of OSC - requires a certain base level of perception and introspection to enjoy and I suspect that skews our statistical universe here.
In short, just because the guys here judge on much more than beauty doesn't mean that the majority of guys elsewhere don't.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
17 year old me). I wasn't victimized, although my feelings were hurt when I found out what a horrible time she'd been having, on toward the end of the date. ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Bob.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)