The latest Media Meme/WitchHunt in the past few months appears to be adult female teachers having sex with under-18 male students. There was a similar, though brief, fad last year over male teachers and female students.
WorldnetDaily has a list of these activities in this story about the latest case, a female substitute teacher that met with a male student after class.
All I can say is, where were all these babes when I was in High School?
OK, that was a bit flip, but I use it to point out that most people look at this in a similar way.
Young men having sex in their mid to late teens is joked about or even approved of. I suspect this is based on old attitudes about masculinity and responsibility. It was masculine to ’spread some wild oats’, especially since it was possible to avoid the ‘burden and expense’ of the consequences of such behavior, namely offspring. A woman claiming a male fathered her child could be disparaged as a loose woman without proof of the child’s parentage. At least this was true before blood tests, and now the far more certain use of DNA testing.
The reverse situation, with an adult male and a mid to late teen female, is looked at differently. Often as a predatory action, and not without some cause for such concern. Though I suspect much of this concern is based on worries over pregnancy and the costs that can bring to a family, left over from the days when women were considered little more than property. When a female was considered an expense to be born until they could be married off, along with a dowry to help the new family with the ‘burden and expense’ of a new female.
But now we are hearing cries of ‘rape’ in these cases. But is it?
So I ask myself; Was force used? No. Were threats or blackmail used? No.
So how can it be rape?
Are we not dumbing down the term? Using what was once a description of a brutal act of violence to label behavior that is consensual, even if it is inadvisable?
Now I am not talking about creeps like Mark Hulett, or John Couey. Or Couey’s family, who hid him even after they knew what he was wanted for, for that matter. As I posted earlier, someone that is attracted to prepubescent and pubescent children has something broken in them, and they need to be removed from society permanently, for the protection of current and future victims.
But once people look physically mature, almost every state, and almost every country, recognizes that consensual sex is a normal human behavior.
Searching on Google will get you a list of various sources for how the law currently treats this.
The two most legitimate seeming are here and here, at Wikipedia.
Most seem to settle on 16 as the age of consent, with 17 common, and 18 less common. At least for US states. Some countries set the age far lower. Too low in my opinion, but I am not an expert, and I do not live there. So, depending on state, any old geezer or geezerette could legally prowl the malls looking for willing 17 year old crumpet and be legal. Again, not that it is advisable for a teenager to engage in this, but we all have to make our mistakes and learn from them. Being 17 is not an excuse from life. And any geezer(ette) doing this should certainly be ready for some back-alley discussions with pissed off parents.
But what about this seeming rash of student-teacher relationships? Are they more frequent or just more reported?
I suspect both, from my memories of high school 30 or so years ago. I think people are more willing to report such goings on, and I also think that this is not going on more than it was in society overall, but that teachers are less willing to control their own behavior. Note I said less willing, not less able. This may also have something to do with the quality of people attracted to teaching. The best people seem to be driven away. But that is a separate issue.
The willingness to report sex crimes is a good thing. Perhaps we are finally starting to lose the attitude that victims somehow ‘asked for it’.
The less willingness to control their own behavior is not a good thing. Why this is happening is complicated, I think.
Conservatives blame TV and Hollywood, as well as secular liberal society.
Liberals blame male hegemony and the objectification of women in porn.
They are both right to some extent, and both wrong to some extent.
TV and Hollywood reflect society, and at the same time affect and change it. They then reflect this change, affecting and changing it some more. It is a reinforcing feedback loop. But people are starting to tire of this, and box office receipts are, I think, reflecting this.
Religion, or the lack of it, can have an effect, but this can work both ways.
Look at what religion causes in mohammedan societies, where women can be raped, and then killed for being the victim of rape, where children can be rented from parents for temporary marriages, sometimes by the hour.
Look at what religion causes in the case of fundamentalist mormons. Where again, women are treated as property, married off at very early ages, even in violation of law. Traded from male to male, sometimes even to close relations like uncles, cousins and grandfathers, like they were part of some sort of living collection of sex toys.
Morality has nothing to do with religion. Indeed, as pointed out above, religion can be used to enforce some of the most immoral behavior imaginable. It can also be used for good, sometimes, but it is far from a panacea.
Male hegemony has something to do with it, though less and less in western liberal society, except in hierarchical religious societies and communities. If it did, why are we seeing so many female adults having it off with teenage males?
Porn, I think, does not lend itself to this any more than TV or Hollywood do. It is a reflection of attitudes though.
If anything, porn depicts teen sex less than TV and Hollywood, since they make sure everyone is an adult. Yes there are some fetish videos, but they all use adults and depict adults, and make it clear that they depict adults. Paradoxically, it is TV and Hollywood that show more teen sexual activity than porn does. Perhaps because the porn industry knows it is a target of opportunity for politicians and moral crusaders, it keeps itself as clean as it can be.
However, I think a big part of this is that this is the latest media fad. Just as preschool child molesters were all the rage a decade ago, (remember the McMartin Pre-school witch hunt?), and school shootings were quite the fashion for the well intended reporter for a few years during the Clinton presidency, followed by a brief infatuation with male teachers taking off on cross-country jaunts with female students
But we now have predatory older babes preying on adolescent male boy toys. The mass media are in a self righteous fervor. Shouting out the news of immoral behavior by women forcing themselves upon unwilling and helpless boys. The fact that this plays into male fantasies of eager women seeking them out for a change, and female fantasies of sexual empowerment, has nothing to do with it, of course. Nothing at all. Really. They swear. It is all out of legitimate concern and sincere worry over the course our society is taking. They promise. Cross their hearts and hope to be canceled.
Uh-huh. Riiiight.
The ultra-liberal establishment would have us believe that a lot of it has to do with our victim society, or something like it. We are all supposedly victims, helpless to control our own lives, powerless to change the course of society, pawns at the hands of big media. We are victims of our biology, held in bondage to our social conditioning by a heartless globalized corporate state. No one is responsible for their own behavior, but is a victim that can hold someone else responsible.
Uh-huh. Riiiight.
But what about this: Just plain human nature.
Every other species mates as soon as it is physically old enough to do so. We are the only species, to my knowledge, that tries to delay this activity in some way. And not without reason. There are some good reasons to delay it, more so in the past than now. Reasons of educational opportunities, economics, wealth, career advancement, all these and more, are still very much valid reasons to delay, for at least a while, childbearing, and the activities that lead to it. Since the advent of birth control, the problem of children arriving when not convenient, and the dangers of childbirth are now controllable. The dangers of disease were largely eliminated until the advent of HIV/AIDS in the 1980’s, and may be again relatively soon.
So it seems to me that part of the problem is that our society no longer conforms to how we have evolved biologically. Trying to control the onset of sexual behavior is as difficult as trying to control the onset of gray hair, baldness or menopause. At best it is so difficult as to be futile. Mostly it is just hopeless.
So what to do?
First, I think a lot of this is an argument for single sex schools, for at least part of the time spent in school, perhaps starting sometime around when kids get into double-digit ages. Males teach males. Females teach females. So it’s not PC, but there is some evidence this helps, though whether it actually does work is controversial.
It may also be an argument for home schooling, for those with the gumption to do it.
It is also an argument for some sort of school choice, so that parents can choose what is appropriate for their child, and to move their child to another school if they suspect something is wrong, without needing to beg an administrator for attention and action, or needing to uproot the family and move, or taking the law into their own hands.
What should be done with teachers case they get involved in an inappropriate relationship?
Well, this dad did something:
An angry father who marched into a classroom and punched a teacher’s assistant in the face said Wednesday he was protecting his 15-year-old daughter, who had accused the man of inappropriately touching her.
If I was on the jury, I sure would not convict him.
Teachers, and others in a position of authority should be treated like all others in this situation, with some additions
Additional penalties are justified because they have a responsibility to the parents that have entrusted them with the care of their children. A breach of that trust should be punishable by loss of job, and professional status and whatever fines a contract can stipulate. This is one of few areas where I think some sort of licensing is a good idea. But a simple one. A child care or “in loco parentis”, license. You screw up once, you lose it permanently, no second chances.
I am not so sure I agree that jail time is a good idea. Punishing people for normal human behavior is useless, and wrong in my opinion. (Remember, we are talking about 16-17 year olds, not 6-7 year olds). I think that needs to be addressed by behaviorists, to see whether it would make any difference. If we avoid making it a crime, we may get more control over the situation. After all, someone facing only loss of a job may be more willing to admit to misbehavior than someone facing prison time. By making sure it is not condoned, but at the same time not so harshly punished as to make covering it up, (or worse), the best option, we may get better control of any situations that do arise before they get out of control.
If jail time is warranted, it should be in proportion to what went on. Imprisonment for any time, let alone life imprisonment, for consensual sex with a 16-17 year old seems way out of line to me, teacher, clergy, or not. Though such conduct with a 6-7 year old makes life imprisonment seem lenient.
At the same time, condoning, hiding, assisting or enabling such activity on the part of an institution, should be punishable. Why school administrators and church officials have gotten a pass so far is an outrage. They should face the same charges if they in any way positively help someone engage in this kind of activity, again, teacher, clergy, or not.
So, back to the title. Are these cases of rape or are these just wrong?
Rape, no. Without violence or threats or blackmail it is not rape to me.
Wrong, yes. Definitely. Punishable? By loss of job and profession and career, yes. Punishable by prison time? Yes, if it involves someone under the age of consent. Other wise I think they just acted the way any normal human might have, just in an inappropriate situation. Permanent removal from that situation should be enough.
But I am open to argument on that.
