Having been under the influence of booze and weed, on occasion simultaneously, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could rape me in such a condition, even as a teen. I either wouldn’t be able to perform (due to physical limitations or lack of desire), or would be all too happy to oblige my oversexed educator. The idea of some woman forcibly inserting my flaccid penis into her vagina against my will is, well, laughable. 19-year-old men getting wasted and then claiming a woman raped them will get a healthy dose of skepticism from me, I’m afraid. I suppose if I was passed out and pumped up with Viagra it might be possible, but let’s get real.
Considering the number of teachers there are in America and that you could probably count the occurances on one hand I would hardly call it a phenomena.
A couple of female teachers take advantage of and have sex with their students.
Suddenly people start looking at the other 100,000 teachers asking them “what’s wrong with you teachers?!!”
Trying to make someone’s occupation a “trait” of an offender is off base.
Jeffery Dahmer worked at a chocolate factory in Milwaukee. Does that mean we suddenly have an epidemic of “candy making serial killers”? Hardly.
I remember seeing Omar Shariff on the Tonight Show once. During that visit, he recounted a story of an encounter with a crazed female fan who begged him, at gunpoint, to make love to her. Omar claimed he replied, “Dear Lady: I would love to help you; but, as you can plainly see, that is quite impossible!”
First off, I was half kidding. Second, I doubt these boys’ lives were messed up because they had sex with their teachers. They were probably messed up long before the teacher entered the picture. In fact, most experts point to that when they examine why sexual predators select certain people. To blame it on the sex is faulty. Correlation does not equal causation. Vili Fuluaa was messed up way before he had sex with his teacher. Besides, my statements were my opinions.
Don’t assume I acted out of ignorance. You know what they say about assumptions.
I was 12 or 13 when I was in middle school. What kind of 13 year old wishes for ice cream and candy at every meal? That’s retarded. You act like many 13 year old aren’t having sex already. It’s not a majority by any stretch, but I think the majority of boys would have sex if they had the chance. I remember having teacher in middle school that I wanted to have sex with. All the boys in the class did, and I imagine most would have. I think you underestimate the maturity of 13 year olds. You would have a point if we were talking about 10 year olds, but we are not.
So what the hell is your point? That it’s O.K. to rape because “they were already messed up?” :rolleyes:
There’s something you’re not understanding about statutory rape. It’s irrelevant whether the child “wants” to have sex with an adult. The reason it’s illegal is because children are not capable of making an informed decision on the matter, and THAT was Knorf’s point. Girls AS WELL AS boys may want to - that doesn’t make it o.k.
No, ass. My point was that her assertion, that boys having sex with a female teacher will be screwed up as a direct result, is suspect. I think that is pretty clear. Please read more carefully.
Did I say it wasn’t statutory rape? I have a perfect understanding of why its illegal, but I don’t view it as something as deleterious (in many cases) as you do. The fact that it is illegal has nothing to do with how heinous, or enjoyable the act is. Besides, do you really see something wrong with a high school senior having sex with a sophmore (something that would be illegal in many places)? I think you are getting way too worked up over this. Plus, the statutory rape of a female is very different from that of a male (in 99.99% of cases).
Another thing-what’s wrong with these women that they prefer 13 year olds?
I mean, let’s face it, if the teacher is 27, good-looking, intelligent, wouldn’t she prefer someone her intellectual equal? Why would she want some pimply-faced kid? Don’t you think that she might not be such a “great catch?”
:dubious:
“Statutory rape” is a misleading term. Most states use more accurate legal terminology to describe this crime, from what I’ve read. It has nothing to do with rape, which needs an unwilling victim.
The trials and media frenzy surrounding his relationship with Ms. Letourneau probably contributed to that, don’t you think? How many of us would remain content and well-adjusted after seeing our lovers arrested, imprisoned, and having the details of our relationships repeated on every TV screen and newspaper?
Moderator’s Note:
Smiling bandit and brickbacon, personal insults like these are not allowed in Great Debates.
man I am sorry you obviously did not go to our school. We would have gone and done it with anything on two legs. Love had nothing to do with it. Those that weren’t doing it were fantasising about it. True by your definition we were not “healthy”, but from conversations we appeared to be the vast majority. The average relationship if it occured was about 4 months.
I was fairly naive in high school, so I completely discount my impressions from then. But I’m talking about being a sort of “elder counselor” to a bunch of teenage boys on and off over the last 20 years or so. My impression is that in group conversations of the sort you seem to be alluding to, the macho image of “ready to fuck anything old enough to bleed” is one that boys feel they have to play up – but when the rubber hits the road (pun intended!), what boys want – by and large, with obvious exceptions – is a relationship that includes sex. That’s what you’ll pick up in honest one-on-one discussions – but their image precludes them from saying that in larger bull sessions.
scm1001, I think the disconnect comes about because the SDMB tends to attract members from the moral and intellectual “upper crust” and some people who expect the best from themselves and, by projection, others are finding it hard to understand, and are even insulted, that the rest of us slobs had not attained our present level of enlightenment when we were sixteen. I was so straightlaced I couldn’t bend over but I still knew most of my male friends were sexually active to one extent or another and were not the slightest bit picky about their partners. Statistics back me up, though I’m not about to Google “sexually active teenagers” when I’m at work. :eek:
“Statutory rape” is an odd concept, only because the laws vary by state, and I’m amused that some people find it to be potentially traumatic when the child is in the upper end of the age range. For instance, I don’t see why it would be traumatic for a sixteen year old in Illinois to have sex when it would be legal for his cousins in Iowa, Kentucky, and Indiana. In Iowa the age of consent goes down to FOURTEEN if the age difference between partners is not too great (IIRC, four years) and in Wisconsin it is eighteen. Is it something in all that cheese that makes kids in Wisconsin mentally more delicate than kids in all the surrounding states?
(after previewing) Yeah, Polycarp, many of us wanted that love relationship, especially if it included lots and lots of sex, but were willing to “settle” for the sex.
I too, am a bit perplexed at some of the hostility directed at those suggesting that this sort of thing is one of the top fantasies among school age pubescent boys. I know it was for me, and pretty much every guy i knew growing up.
Whether it is socialization, nature, or otherwise, men and women experience the sex act, and quite often its leadup, differently. While I’m not saying that young girls don’t fantasize about their teachers, I don’t think it happens with near the frequency as the other, or is as sex-centered as guys’ fantasies tend to be.
I tend to agree with Polycarp, but I do think that here is a distinction without much of a difference. A relationship sounds good (everyone wants to be loved) but in the average male fantasy, sex is part and parcel of a relationship. And yes, failing all else, boys will ‘settle’ for the sex without a relationship pretty quickly.
brickbacon, I was simply trying to make a point with my above statement. I haven’t been around middle school kids for a while now, so I do apologize if I was mistaken in what they fantasize about. But surely you understand that is why I put in more than one example, in case one did not apply to you? Bottom line is, you may fantasize something at any age, but if it actually happened things may turn out badly. For instance, I can fantasize about belittling you about your childish use of the term “retarded” in a grown up forum like Great Debates, but that would probably get me reprimanded by the mods should I actually do so. 
Really? Which one of us just got reprimanded by the moderator? 
It’s not identical to rape, but it’s false to say it has “nothing to do” with it. The reasoning, as I already pointed out, is that a minor is not emotionally qualified to render her or his own consent. Being “unwilling” is not necessary for the crime to occur, because a child is not yet equipped to decide if she or he is willing to engage in adult activities.
Not being mature enough to render an informed decision, and being unwilling, are not identical, but neither do they have “nothing to do” with each other. Children will willingly agree to do many things that an adult might not do, because adults are presumably fully self-realized individuals.
The point of contention is not whether teenagers have sexual fantasies. Do try to read the thread better than that.
I never claimed that this was a point of contention. My post was more a reaction to the ‘crucify him!’ stuff going on toward dropzone, et al. From where I sit, the comments, while probably not adding much to the OP’s discussion, did warrant the reaction they received (IMHO).
There’s going to be a sizeable portion of the population rolling their eyes at stories like this exactly because it fulfills a **very ** common male fantasy. All of the ‘half-kidding’ remarks have a grain of truth to them. The key is getting the dialogue past that point. You can either do it by talking about the reasoning behind our statutory rape laws, examining the disconnect between fantasy and reality in these relationships, talking about the gender disparity involved in these situations, or by calling people immature, sick, etc. I know which I find the *least * enlightening.
Yes you did. You said, and I quote, “hostility directed at those suggesting that this sort of thing is one of the top fantasies among school age pubescent boys”. You clearly implied that you believe hostility is directed at them because they said boys have fantasies. And I’m telling you that is NOT the reason we are disagreeing with them.
If this is what was communicated, then I apologize for my lack of clarity. My belief is actually that they are being castigated for being dismissive of behavior that, at its best, is unethical, and at its worst, is one of the worst criminal acts one can conceive of. Is that closer to the mark?
The only thing that i tried to point out (badly, it seems) is that this is, in the opinion of *many * young men, the coolest thing ever. The same hurdle exists when discussing it among men that have grown up, but not out, of that mindset. This may not make sense, but, all things being equal, you saying ‘his teacher had sex with him and got arrested for it’ sounds much like ‘his teacher gave him a million dollars, and got arrested for it.’ A lot of this has to do gender roles, the idea that women provide ‘the brakes’ on sex, etc. A lot of the underlying assumptions are wrong. Some are right, but have no bearing on the criminality of the actions in a civil society.
Anyway, ignoring this POV or making light of it doesn’t make it go away. That was basically my point.