Female Teachers And Adolescent Boys

A 25 year old female middle school teacher in Florida has pleaded guilty to charges that she had sex with a 14 year old boy who was one of her students. There are pictures of her on internet news sites and she is quite attractive. She was also married at the time she was carrying on with the boy.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has made the news. Does anyone have any idea why some female teachers are attracted to adolescent boys? I can’t imagine that a boy that young would have much to offer sexually. Is it maybe some kind of maternal instinct gone haywire?

We (usually) think of an attraction of one gender to the opposite gender of ‘like’ age ranges as ‘normal’, we have some who are attracted to members of the same gender, and others who are attracted to members of different age ranges, and some who are attracted to different ages and same gender.

I think anyone who truly know why is too afraid to answer.

My gut reaction is that she sees the same thing in a 14 year old boy that a 25 year old man sees in a 14 year old girl. What that is I dunno but it pegs my “Ick” meter.

I am a female secondary ed teacher, and stories like this make my skin crawl. The climate of hysteria about sexual misconduct of teachers comes from individuals like this. All I can say is, this woman must have been a pedophile, or a hebephile, whatever you’d call it. I can’t imagine being sexually attracted to a person in that age group. I think it’s an unhealthy predilection.

I’m not sure its the same thing. My feeling is that a 25 year old man is looking for sex from a 14 year old girl and nothing more. 25 year old women tend to have more of a “nesting” instinct and tend to have sex with men they percieve as good providers. (I realize that this is a sweeping generalization) A 14 year old boy just doesn’t fit as a “provider”.

And 25 yo men are supposed to be attracted to big-breasted blondes. 14 yo girls aren’t supposed to fit this stereotype, either.
You don’t really believe that all women are seeking “providers”, nor that they can’t have any sexual deviation or fetish, do you?

I’m not a woman, nor can I speak for these pedophiles but I would guess it’s not the same either. IMO, men seem to be more selfish in bed. Young boys need to perform… maybe they do, but I would doubt it.

A news show interviewed a Dr. who said that these women are trying to get back to a younger time in their lives, FWIW.

I can’t see why it requires any instincts gone haywire. People seem to have forgotten that the primary reason for sex is to obtain some foreign genes to mix with your own in your offspring.

The ideal life-partner for a 25yo woman may be a healthy 25-35yo with some wealth and a pogressing career, but that’s because those traits detemrine how much he can contribute to raising the offspring.

The ideal sex partner is simply whichever male can contribute the best genes. That has nothing to do with age. That boy will have the same genes and be producing precisely the same sperm in 11 years time as he is today. His genes won’t improve with age.

How women guage who would make a good gentic match is very unlcear, but many of the traits such as facial symmetry, height and so forth will be just as apparent in a 14yo as in a 25yo. Because of that there is no reason why women shouldn’t be instinctively attracted to any male capable of producing semen regardless of age.

Our society has had a long history of associating producing chidlren with marriage, and the concept is so ingrained that we seem to have forgotten that the two can be separated. From an evolutionary perpective it makes little sense for a woman to pass up the opportunity for good genetic material purely on the basis of age. In fact it makes less sense than it does for men. Women need to reach a certain level of physical maturity before they can safely produce children so for a man to have sex with a young woman may be counterproductive. Men have no such limit to their ability to produce offspring.

Okay, interesting evolutionary explanation there from Blake which certainly possibly explains why someone might have sexual feelings for a 14 year old boy, but I doubt that it explains this case.

Rather, I think that it is much more likely that she has some sort of psychological issue where she is attracted to a relationship that she can control and act in well, a predatory manner. Her husband is an equal, hundreds of potential sperm-donors that she could pick up in bars are equals and are probably going to be unwilling to be a committed, “lover,” or whatever, but a 14 year old student? He’ll eat out of her hand and do whatever she wants and have sex with her in the backseat of an SUV driven around by an unlicened 15 year old. That’s what frankly makes her a sexual predator.

I have heard a couple of interesting theories.

  1. She had control over the boy.

  2. Emotionally, she was the same age as the boy.

I don’t pretend to know if either one of those is true, but I can see the plausibility of them.

Maybe in the bigger picture but only at an instinctual level. I don’t know anyone who uses this as a criteria for sleeping partners.

Given today’s medical advances and our complicated social structure there is no way one could judge someone’s potential for a good genetic contribution at age 14.

Again, I believe these pedophiles are looking for more than a genetic match.

Hombre, what do you think your standards of beauty are? Why do you think you find facial symmetry, high hip to waist ratios, long necks, high cheekbones, breasts etc to be beautiful? And what do you think you use to gauge whether to sleep with someone?

All those criteria are things you use to gauge whether someone has good genes. That is why you consider them beautiful.

So yeah, everyone uses genetic match as the prime criteria for selecting sex partners. Maybe we use others as well after we get to know someone, but if we don’t find them physically attractive we probably won’t make much effort to get to know them.
The people we are most sexually attracted to are, almost by definition, the ones who are the best genetically.

And those things don’t change no matter what the medical standards of the day. Our standards of beauty are in large part a means of judging how well someone has survived in the environment we are currently living in. That’s because that is the environment the offspring will also nee dot survive in. Whether that environment contains antibiotics and laser surgery or contains smallpox and sabre=toothed tigers doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether the person has survived well within that environment.
Let’s make it quite clear: this woman is a child molester.

The fact that there may be instincts that make 14yos attractive doesn’t make it right to act on that attarction. Our instincts regularly urge us to beat the shit out of people too, we don’t act on them, and we don’t excuse people who do act.

Instinctive =/= moral.

Having said that, it’s impossible to sort out why people find other people attractive. There are the usual reasons like physical beauty, intelligence, social positiun and wealth. But then there are unlimited factors that aren’t obvious.

Most selection is done entirely subconsciously. This woman almost certainly didn’t say “My, I wnat to have a child with that boy”. But then almost nobody does that, ever. Our sexual desires are mostly subconscious and we certainly don’t know what prompted them. Because of that it mkaes little sense to say that there were other sperm donors available. This woman wasn’t consciously searching for a sperm donor any more than she would have been if she picked up some stranger in a bar.

Did she enjoy the aspect of control? Quite possibly. Does she have mental problems? Almost certainly given that she repeatedly committed serious illegal acts. But none of that detracts from the underlying point. The desire in itself isn’t some sort of defect. The defect was acting on it as she did. Just as desire for wealth or rich foods aren’t defects, but acting on those desires often can be.

No deep and complex psyhcological explanation is required for why she wanted to have sex with this boy. That can be explained by simple sexual selection instincts. The only explanation required is why she decided to act on it given the consequences for everyone involved.

And even those consequences are probably primarily cultural. In many, if not most, societies thorughout human history it was normal or even required that the first sexual contact that a pubecsent boy had was with a woman in her 20s or 30s. So the idea that women simply never have such desires is probably a cultural artefact with no biological basis.

The same applies to men who are attacted to teenage girls. Throughout our history the ideal mate for a man would have been a girl with the physical maturity equivalent to a modern 15yo. As such men are pre-programmed to find such girls attractive. But in our society girls mature earlier, and we don’t accept men having sex with 15 or 16 year olds. It’s a crime, and so it should be. But that doesn’t mean the desire in itself is wrong or unnatural or requires some psyhcological explanation. What is wrong is acting on the desire.

The idea that a 25yo being attracted to a 14yo who is physically identical to an 180yo is somehow unnatural or icky makes no real sense. It suggests he shouldn’t be attrscted to the 18yo either, which just ain’t gonna happen.

Blake, Given that this is GQ rather than GD, I will not get involved in a prolonged debate with you (though I would love to). But to address your last post:

Wrong. Dead wrong. I use these characteristics as a good sexual stimulus. Being a higher primate with the ability to think abstractly, I have a different standard for who I feel could best carry the most firewood vs. who could boink me the best. I think most modern humans do.

I believe this to be false. It is you who are underestimating the capacity for rational thought. Sexually attracted to = “best genetically”. No. As you point out, evolution is at work here. Humans are capable of making a ‘wrong’ choice.

I’m not saying they don’t find them attractive, I believe they do. That has nothing to do with genetic advantage or evolution.

Again, another time another place…


:dubious: So you are saying that you make your choice of sex partners based primarily on technique and not on attractiveness? I find that very hard to believe. Even assuming it is true, let me assue tyou that most people do not do so.

I can’t even make any sense of this.

If what a species finds sexually attractive isn’t the best genetically then how exactly did that criterion become universally attractive? It can’t happen. Those individuals attracted to traits that don’t indicate genetic superiority will by definition have fewer offspring. As a result only those traits which offer genetic advantage can ever become widely attaractive.


As I just took some time to explain, just about the only thing that beauty and attractiveness are related to are genetic advantage and evolution. I’ll provide you with any number o references comfirming that point if you wish.

This is a gross oversimplification, even if you accept the idea that the only reason people have sex is to propagate their genes. The optimum is not simply to get the best genes from one’s partner, but to maximize the chances that one’s children will go on to have lots of their own children.

When considering sex partners for the purpose of procreation, women must consider the following (at least):

[li]the overall genetic fitness of the candidate (i.e. good genes)[/li][li]the willingness of the candidate to contribute to the child’s upbringing (i.e. will he abandon me)?[/li][li]the ability of the candidate to support the child[/li][li]the fidelity of the candidate (i.e. will his resources be diverted to children from other women?)[/li][li]the age of the candidate (i.e. is he too young to be a good father, or so old that he’ll kick the bucket soon?)[/li][/ul]

All of these affect a child’s chances of going on to produce more children.

Given all of this (and leaving aside the moral questions for the time being), a fourteen-year-old boy is not a good choice of sexual partner for a mature woman looking to have children, no matter how handsome he is.

I was just about to say basically what Jeff Lichtman said. Basically, this idea would work if it were a man preying on a girl. If you want to go back to our most basic instinct, it is most advantageous for a male to basically sleep with anybody, since the more varied his offspring, the more likely it is that some of it will continue. Men have a basically limitless supply of sperm, so they don’t have to conserve.
Women, on the other hand, have a very limited supply of viable eggs, not to mention the time pregnancy takes, plus the time afterward that they have to spend on raising their kid. Given that, a woman most desires a mate who will not only be genetically appealing in the physical sense, but will also be able to provide continuing care for the offspring. A 14-year old boy cannot do this in our society. The woman may find the boy attractive, but using her highly developed brain, she will realize that he is an unacceptable mate. I don’t think anything can really justify what she did. It was definitely abnormal behavior as far as I am concerned.

Basically, I said basically a lot, basically. Basically, I’m basically not sure why.

Its not a gross simplification. What you have done is grossly misrepresented what I posted. I made a clear dsitinction between alife partner, who is someone who will assist in rearing children, and a sex partner, who is someone who contributes gens.

All you have done is conflated the two categories.

Ditto for you audipobottle. You have conflated the two issues. Women have two distinct sets of desires when it comes to partners, not just one as you have stated. Occasionally the two sets of desires can be satisfied with one individual, frequently they can not and a compromise has to be reached.

No, you are putting words in my mouth. I do choose attractiveness over brute strength or technique for a one night stand. Technique is unknown until it is too late, mate-wise speaking.

Not only can it, but it did! If you can’t grasp the concept of human beings being able to circumvent their genetic imprinting (in regards to sexual deviancy) I feel this dialog will grind to a halt soon.

I respect your knowledge, sir, but I have seen too many examples of you calling, “Cite” and not providing cites of your own.

The OP asked for opinion, I gave mine. The ‘facts’ are in dispute. Only the guilty can answer for them.

You are saying that the reason an adult woman would have sex with a fourteen-year-old is to get his good genes - that is, to have healthy children, while at the same time she has or seeks a life partner to give her a good environment to raise her children. In other words, she has a cuckold at home and a stud on the side. While it does happen that wives cheat on their husbands, it is generally a bad strategy for a grown woman to get “gene contributions” from an adolescent if only because no reasonable “life partner” would put up with it. Most men are not that clueless. In the case of this teacher, what man do you know that would even consider marrying her at this point (and not just because she now has a criminal record).