I am reading Fotheringay-Phipps’ posts the same way, Kimstu. I can’t figure out where the disconnect is.
Nobody is saying that a 16 year old should be made to feel bad about their sexuality. But it’s that exact attitude of expecting and assuming all teenage boys to consider all sex a victory that makes it difficult to see that some sex in some situations for some boys is not, and it makes it next to impossible for them to speak up about it.
My cousin had an sexual affair with an older married women in her twenties when he was sixteen. She was attractive, and by most accounts everyone was convinced he was lucky as hell. At least until he blew out his own brains with a shotgun. According to his suicide note he was just in so far over his head that death was his only way out.
The part that really hit me was that he flat out said in his suicide note that he tried to reach out for help, and everyone he reached out to pretty much ignored his suffering because he was so “lucky” to be having sex with a hot older woman.
So Martian, still want to blindly insist the boys “will turn out fine?”
Control and autonomy are not the same thing as getting what you want. Control and autonomy can result in you getting what you want. But they’re not the same.
Illustration: If you go over to a slot machine over which you have zero control or autonomy, you might happen to get what you want and hit the jackpot. Or you might not. If you had control or autonomy then you would always get what you want. If you don’t then you sometimes will and sometimes won’t. Point being that these are separate concepts.
Happens to be that men are assumed to want sex more, so no-strings sex in particular is perceived as men getting what they want. Women are perceived to be more interested in meaningful relationships, so meaningful relationships would be perceived as women getting what they want. That doesn’t imply - as would be the case under your paradigm - that women in meaningful relationships are perceived as having “control and autonomy”.
What you’re trying to sell is that beyond the actual enjoyment of the “jackpot” itself, the “control and autonomy” itself is the issue here, as it fulfills the “manly” stereotype. But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that independent of any manly stereotypes and independent of having control, the mere few-strings sex is perceived as an arrangement that’s on terms more favorable to the man, and - whether by luck or design - he’s a “winner” in that sense.
That’s a perfectly fine call for you as one of the willing participants in consensual sex to make. But it’s not appropriate for some stranger who doesn’t know anything about your sexual relationship except that it existed. You have no business broadcasting gleeful internet high-fives to strangers in the news just for having had sex, when you don’t even know whether they were an enthusiastic partner or a rape victim.
[QUOTE=sitchensis]
Should it be shamed and hidden? Should young people be made to feel bad about it? Should their peers condemn them?
[/quote]
Of course not: way to set up silly strawman arguments there. :rolleyes: People in general should not be shaming or cheering for specific sexual outcomes in the consensual personal relationships of random strangers.
What other consenting people choose to do in private is no business of yours unless they choose to tell you about it. And if it should turn out that one of them wasn’t really consenting after all, it’s even more inappropriate for you to go haw-hawing around with your YAY LOOKIT THAT DUDE, HE GOT SOME, WAY TO GO DUDE.
Yup, sex with another high schooler can also ruin a high schooler’s life. Which is why we also try to discourage that, before it happens. The difference is that, if it happens anyway, we don’t hold the other high scooler liable, because she was also immature and driven to act irrationally, and likely just as much of a victim.
? That’s not a valid illustration. What does it even mean to have autonomy “over” a person or thing?
And the more he keeps trying to explain it, the less sense it seems to make. Well, agree to disagree, I guess, and maybe at some point one of us will have an epiphany that makes us mutually comprehensible.
I thought he meant that sometimes you can get what you want, even if you don’t have control over the process that gets you that thing.
Oh, come on. There are risks and downsides, but sex between two high schoolers can also be a wonderful thing.
…provided you can get between the right two high schoolers.
NO! I kid. Blame Woody Allen.
You can have control over a person or thing. You can have autonomy in that the person or thing has no control over you. In many interactions these are flip sides of the same thing.
On the one hand, the power imbalance here seems to be a non-factor. The odds that she used her position to coerce these boys into having relations with her are very slim. A woman like her could almost certainly have had relations with them if she had met them outside her professional capacity, and it is only the professional aspect of this which makes it illegal. It fails the “half your age plus 7” test, so it’s skeevy, but not illegal. I seriously doubt she told these kids to service her or flunk her class. The forbidden aspect may have added to the allure for the students, but all other things being equal a woman who looks like her could find willing teenage boy partners without that allure easily enough.
The reason I support this teacher’s firing and criminal prosecution is because she had relations with at least 3 students in the ~8 months she worked there. This isn’t some Emmanuel Macron type situation where the kid apparently fell hard for her and she was reluctant and willing to wait for him to grow up and then get married and spend their lives together. I can even have some sympathy for someone like Mary Kay Letourneau who didn’t wait, but by all accounts seemed to really have a connection with the kid and he married her as soon as it was legal for him to and they raised a family together.
But the subject of this thread doesn’t seem to have found her soulmate(in the Aristophanes sense of the term). This make it more likely she’s a predator and needs to be kept away from young boys.
Enjoy,
Steven
A 16-year-old boy can make the decision to pork his smokin’ 25-year-old teacher.
The implication of your statement is that when he is 18 he won’t want to hit it because he is 2 years wiser?
Here’s the little lady in court.
The whole situation can be explained when you nose what to look for.
The implication is that when he’s 18 he’ll want to hit it with a condom on, and in the context of a public(as opposed to covert) adult relationship, and thinking more of the future and his responsibilities in the relationship/society.
I know that’s stupid, but that’s the way we treat the age of majority in this country.
Enjoy,
Steven
Yeah, suddenly this smells a bit different, And they say profiling isn’t helpful in investigations?
Oh, what a difference two years makes.
I guess that previous link was moved, so new link.
Yeah. This is what I see.
Sure, some kids will be OK. Some kids won’t, but the problem is when any concern is dismissed out of hand like this.