Definitely! 
ObSimpsons:
“Since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing: blocking it out!” – C. Montgomery Burns
Of course. The difference is that most 14 year old boys ultimate fantasy dream is of being molested by their female teachers, where most 14 year old girls would need therapy if they were molested by their male teachers. Are we just supposed to ignore this?
I’m 66 and I’d do her.
'course I’d prolly be about 70 by the time I got a hard -on but anyway 
Stop laughing you lot…NOW!
I’d’ve done her if I was 14.
Say, this all sounds awfully familiar.
I sure wish a hot teacher would have let me fuck when I was 14. Predator? Shiiiiit.
You’ve just compared apples with pears. You should discuss whether fourteen-year-old boys actually do need therapy, or whether 14yo girls do fantasise about teachers (or other older males).
Good grief, I’ve heard women fantasise about being raped, but it doesn’t mean that actually being raped is a wonderful experience for them. :rolleyes:
What does the scientific literature say about the occurrence of harm to 14 year old boys who have sex with older women?
That is not a rhetorical question. However, I know what my own thoughts on the subject were at the age of 14, and I know what thoughts were expressed by my male friends at the same age. I know one’s recollections can be unreliable. I also know that perhaps the actual experience might not be as great as one imagined it might be. But unless I am referred to well designed studies suggesting that boys are harmed by such experiences, I’m not about to assume they are.
I wish I could say where I heard this…it may have been a Human Sexuality course.
Fathers at one time would initiate their young sons by taking them to visit a reasonably young widow. The pretense was that they could “help her out” by washing windows etc. The reality was that widows usually didn’t remarry but could still use the nookie, and the boys got an experienced woman to teach them the skills. Any dopers recognize this?
I always wondered if the lingerie was called a “merry widow” for this reason; i.e. yes her spouse is dead but she still needs lingerie because she’s getting sex regularly. Wikipedia says it’s so named because of the operetta.
When I was 14 I would have been overjoyed if a hot young teacher wanted to seduce me.
Now that I am 68, I would be overjoyed if a hot young teacher wanted to seduce me.
See what a difference a few years makes?
Ohh thank you so much for the image of a battery of a thousand Ron Jeremys standing like an AAA installation :mad:
I’m pretty sure my fantasies when I was a teenager haven’t changed a whole lot since then. They pretty much were, and remain, getting into a women’s pants. Most teenage sex is lousy compared to when you are older, because if it is between two teenagers neither knows what they are doing to give themselves pleasure, or more importantly, their partner pleasure.
An experienced older women would have been heaven, afaik. And no, I probably wouldn’t have needed therapy afterwards if I had agreed to it…Well, that is unless some well meaning soul continually badgered me about how horrible I should be feeling after being ‘abused’ so badly.
If the boys wanted to do it or not is irrelevent. She is a criminal and should be prosecuted in the same manner as a male would be.
Who’s the victim there?
Someone who legally cannot give consent to the sexual encounter.
Would you feel the same way if it were a 28 year old man banging a 15 year old girl?
Again, irrelevent. The age of consent in florida for a male is 16. Hence, statutory rape. (though they refer to it as lewd and lascivious behavior as I recall)
The question being discussed here is I think whether and to what extent her behaviour should be a criminal and related nuances. That is what some here are debating.
But in any debate of this sort, there are always some peabrains who argue that what occurred should be criminal because what occurred was a breach of the law. They no doubt also do a great line in arguments about how water is wet.
Listen up, peabrains: nobody here doesn’t understand that what this woman did was a breach of the law. Some of us however have sufficient ability to think independantly to be able to consider the issue without being constrained by blockhead mantras that amount to: “Duh law is duh law is duh law”
I should add that personally I think her behaviour should certainly at the least amount to a breach of her employment contract resulting in reprimand and probably the sack. Maybe some sort of criminal sanction. Without objective evidence of harm I don’t know who the victim is, and I have a difficulty with serious charges for victimless crimes.
Regardless of how you or I feel about it, no matter how much I would have taken a great deal of pleasure at being “abused” in such a fashion in High School, we are a nation ruled by Law. What she did is a crime, period. Handwaving of this nature is the same sort of handwaving that folks do about smoking pot.
Whether or not it should be legal is a totally different issue. The FACT is she broke a law, knowingly and with forethought, on several occasions. She got busted, now she pays for it. Most (such as myself) are more annoyed at the fact that she will not be treated the same as a male teacher in similar situations.
Don’t like a law? Fine. Violate it. But be expecting to pay the harshest penalty possible if caught, and be prepared to be caught. Getting caught red… handed… and then saying it shouldn’t be a crime is just stupid.
Indeed it is the issue being discussed.
Thanks Einstein. The FACT is that no one here doesn’t know that. Why are you blathering on about it?
Why? I agree that if she or anyone said that it wasn’t a crime because it shouldn’t be a crime, that would be stupid.
But why, precisely, is it stupid to say that something shouldn’t be a crime? I’ll give you a hint: saying “because it’s a crime” isn’t an answer that anyone other than a moron would give.