Louisiana Male Teen "Double Teamed" by Two Female Teachers

[J. D. Stembal]

Statutory rape charges have been filed against two high school teachers in Louisiana.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/teachers-group-sex-louisiana-destrehan-high-school_n_5928942.html?cps=gravity

 

According to the statue, one year is the minimum sentence. If found guilty, I wonder if these rapists will get more than the minimum. (One of the teachers was twice the age of the student.) Hopefully, the judge sends a message that the double standard of the sexes no longer applies in the courtroom.

 

I also found it instructive how many men are coming out of the woodwork to commend the victim for banging hot teachers in the Facebook comments. It's more than just a little sickening to contemplate why this is so.

[MMX2010]

I have a different reaction, ETU. 

 

Either: (1) Both male teenagers and female teenagers ought to be considered immature because they're not "developed enough" to consent to sex.  (2) Both male teenagers and female teenagers ought to be considered mature because they're "developed enough" to consent to sex.

 

In the first scenario, both male adults and female adults would be considered predatory.  But in the second scenario, both male teenagers and female teenagers would be considered "lucky" to be banging "hot" members of the opposite sex. 

 

Right now, I don't like the "not sufficiently developed" argument, because the brain only fully develops at age 25 - which would mean that 25 should be the minimum legal age for any individual to consent to sex. 

 

However, if you object that "development doesn't mean brain development; it means something else" - then the most obvious "something else" that would mean is "physical development".  In which case, anyone who has gone through puberty is "developed enough" to consent to sex.  And this leads to the bone-chilling conclusion that an eleven year old male/female with "hair down there" (sorry to be so crass) ought to be legally able to consent to sex. 

 

Overall, I don't know what the answer is.  But I do know that our current answers ain't based on anything logical or scientifically-supported. 

[st434u]

If the guy was bragging about it after the fact, clearly it was not rape.

 

It is important to define your terms consistently.

 

I bet you would be the first to condemn feminists who have consensual sex while drunk and then cry rape because they regret it the morning after, and you'd be totally right.

 

There is no way that a drunken 18 year old gal has better judgement than a sober 16 year old guy.

 

Age and sexual consent is a complicated issue and I don't want to claim to know where the line in the sand should be drawn, but when you throw around terms like "rapists", you are devaluing what the term actually means. From what I saw in your link, I don't think that what these two women did is at all comparable to actual, forcible rape.

 

The fact that they were his high school teachers may make it worse than it otherwise would be, because it is similar to a prison guard having sex with a prisoner. And if you were making that point, I might be willing to consider your point of view. But you're not, are you? If you were, why would it matter that one of the women was 32? And of course, this took place outside of the school's premises, so that is also a point to consider if you were making that point.

[RyanT]

Well in like the 2st-3nd years of Senior School (12-13) I remember a few girls who'd basically get passed around the local stoners crowd (15-21) and they were forever bragging about what they'd got up to.

 

Now obviously 16 is a lot different to 12 but couldn't a similar argument be applied?

 

It's certainly a complicated area of ethics, thus we are kinda forced to draw these fairly crude lines in the sand,

but who actually benefits from the alternative?

 

So quite honestly if some teacher (or any other adult) seems to get a 'raw deal' out of it..I have very little sympathy.  

 

Seriously, just how difficult is it for 2 good looking women to find a 18+ guy to have a 3-way?

[LovePrevails]

What does it say about me that the first thing I'm wondering is are these teachers hot? lol

I click the link to the huffington post article hoping there is a picture...

[Josh F]

If the guy was bragging about it after the fact, clearly it was not rape.

 

It is important to define your terms consistently.

 

I bet you would be the first to condemn feminists who have consensual sex while drunk and then cry rape because they regret it the morning after, and you'd be totally right.

 

There is no way that a drunken 18 year old gal has better judgement than a sober 16 year old guy.

 

Age and sexual consent is a complicated issue and I don't want to claim to know where the line in the sand should be drawn, but when you throw around terms like "rapists", you are devaluing what the term actually means. From what I saw in your link, I don't think that what these two women did is at all comparable to actual, forcible rape.

 

The fact that they were his high school teachers may make it worse than it otherwise would be, because it is similar to a prison guard having sex with a prisoner. And if you were making that point, I might be willing to consider your point of view. But you're not, are you? If you were, why would it matter that one of the women was 32? And of course, this took place outside of the school's premises, so that is also a point to consider if you were making that point.

I think there is some merit to this, especially the last part.  My issue isn't that its rape, I think that its very hard to put this act into the same category as someone holding a knife to someone's neck while having sex with them.  The issue is that this is public school.  This is a common occurrence, I knew many teachers in my high school who allegedly had sex with their students.  School boards, like catholic churches, hide these teachers and protect them often.  They're also funded by tax payer dollar.  Its very similar to a prison guard having sex with an inmate, and speaks volumes as to why public school is bad for children.  

[AustinJames]

According to the statue, one year is the minimum sentence. If found guilty, I wonder if these rapists will get more than the minimum. (One of the teachers was twice the age of the student.) Hopefully, the judge sends a message that the double standard of the sexes no longer applies in the courtroom.

 

I don't think the solution is to give harsher sentences to females for allegedly consensual relationships in which the ability to consent is questionable.  That would be like saying the answer to slavery is to enslave white people.  I would like to see sentences for male offenders reduced (under certain circumstances); not the sentences for females increased. The answer may be to reevaluate the way we assess the nature of consent in sexual relationships.  The scientific method has not been applied consistently to the question of consent, so there can be improvement in the manner in which we handle these issues.

 

In the same way, the issue of how to address rape claims in instances in which the alleged victim cannot recall the sexual interaction needs to be further scrutinized.

 

Edit: I do agree, it would be nice to see the double standard die.

[Psychophant]

A consensual threesome with a 16 year old lad and two hot blond teachers envolved makes a lucky dude. No prob so far, unless he was mentally retarded and couldn´t consent.

 

Right now, I don't like the "not sufficiently developed" argument, because the brain only fully develops at age 25 - which would mean that 25 should be the minimum legal age for any individual to consent to sex.

 

What does fully developed even entail? Obviously more than being able to consent to sex and being able to assess the consequences of aformentioned act. If a 16 years old is able to do that with a gal the same age, he is able to do it with everybody.

 

[andkon]

If the guy was bragging about it after the fact, clearly it was not rape.

 

That's not necessarily the case. Many people say that spanking taught them to "act right" and "be respectful," but we know that's just the rationalizations of the abused.

[Pepin]

If I find the case of a teen girl and two male teachers having consensual sex creepy, then the case here ought to be considered the same. What reason which would make it wrong in one case not apply to the other?

 

If anything it ought to be more creepy as males develop slower.

[st434u]

That's not necessarily the case. Many people say that spanking taught them to "act right" and "be respectful," but we know that's just the rationalizations of the abused.

 

There's a difference between becoming so used to years upon years of abuse that they embrace it as good or a necessary evil yet rarely if ever talk about it, to something that just happened and they not only think of it as good, they think of it as something that makes them a more valuable person, to the point that they're bragging about it so much that everybody in the school knew.

[RyanT]

If I find the case of a teen girl and two male teachers having consensual sex creepy, then the case here ought to be considered the same. What reason which would make it wrong in one case not apply to the other? If anything it ought to be more creepy as males develop slower.

Totally...how about 2 male teachers and a teen boy...Can you imagine the reaction then?

[hannahbanana]

A consensual threesome with a 16 year old lad and two hot blond teachers envolved makes a lucky dude. No prob so far, unless he was mentally retarded and couldn´t consent.

 

What does fully developed even entail? Obviously more than being able to consent to sex and being able to assess the consequences of aformentioned act. If a 16 years old is able to do that with a gal the same age, he is able to do it with everybody.

I think I agree with what you're saying about the guy being able to make his own decisions about who he has sex with at 16, (if he's got the mental/emotional development for that - which is a pretty difficult thing to quantify, I'll admit). But the important thing to me, is that a situation in which an underage boy has sex with an adult be treated the same as a situation with an underage girl. Which, let's be honest, it isn't. For the girl, it will be considered rape, no questions, even if the girl consented and was bragging about it. With the boy, it's much more likely for people to say "well, he OBVIOUSLY wanted it, so we won't bother to figure out the facts."

[Kevin Beal]

Is it worse in the case of a female student given the chance of pregnancy? I don't know...

[Josh F]

I think I agree with what you're saying about the guy being able to make his own decisions about who he has sex with at 16, (if he's got the mental/emotional development for that - which is a pretty difficult thing to quantify, I'll admit). But the important thing to me, is that a situation in which an underage boy has sex with an adult be treated the same as a situation with an underage girl. Which, let's be honest, it isn't. For the girl, it will be considered rape, no questions, even if the girl consented and was bragging about it. With the boy, it's much more likely for people to say "well, he OBVIOUSLY wanted it, so we won't bother to figure out the facts."

 

 

So if you ask a 16 year old boy if he thinks having sex with a teacher would traumatize him, there is a good chance he would say no.  And meanwhile society at large would say no, and would praise such an action.  Meanwhile if a 16 year old girl was asked the same question, her answer may change.  And societies answer changes.

 

Does this mean that they biologically would react to the event differently, or that society's view of sex becomes internalized?

 

So there is a tribe in Africa I read about in college.  They encourage their pre-mature children to be sexual with each other.  After puberty kids are placed in monogamous relationships.  The idea is that they explore sexuality before it comes with the consequence of pregnancy.  Once children into the picture, they must be in relationships.  In this kind of society, no adult expresses that the experience was traumatic.

 

My big question on this topic is where does the trauma come from?  The incident or the reaction? 

 

Much the same with most sexual or bodily things there ends up being so much shame around it.  Like a kid who normally runs around his house naked being yelled at to put on cloths infront of visiting neighbors.  He learns "naked = bad"

[hannahbanana]

So if you ask a 16 year old boy if he thinks having sex with a teacher would traumatize him, there is a good chance he would say no.  And meanwhile society at large would say no, and would praise such an action.  Meanwhile if a 16 year old girl was asked the same question, her answer may change.  And societies answer changes.

 

Does this mean that they biologically would react to the event differently, or that society's view of sex becomes internalized?

I think you misunderstood what I said...I'm saying that it is much more likely for a man to be accused and registered as a sex offender in a case of statutory rape on an underage girl (even if the girl consented, because legally she cannot give consent), compared to a girl being accused and registered as a sex offender for statutory rape. Or to look at it another way, people don't make as big a deal about an underage boy having sex with an adult women as they do with an underage girl having sex with an adult man. I'm not sure what you mean by a 16 year old girl being asked if it was traumatic, and her answer changing, if that is based off of what I said in the previous post.

I was thinking of this because the OP mentioned that normal people were commending the boy in the original article for "banging hot teachers."

 

In response to the rest of your post, I also think it is interesting/frustrating how sexuality is deemed very shameful as a child, but then you're just sort of expected to know how to handle it once you become an adult.

 

Also, just thinking about it right now, there are probably several reasons why a person in such a situation might say they were traumatized, some honest and some not. Maybe they really were raped. Maybe they went along with it, but after the experience were told that it is illegal and go along with being told they were unable to give legal consent. Maybe they said it was rape because they didn't want to get in trouble or be shamed by their family. I think there are a lot of things it could be, especially when the biggest thing that brings up the question of rape is just a law that arbitrarily decides when people can give consent or not.

 

[Jot]

I dont know about you guys but I would consider myself lucky if this happened to me.

[Kevin Beal]

I dont know about you guys but I would consider myself lucky if this happened to me.

I can't find the source right now, but I remember hearing about a study which showed that while some young boys reported enjoying it in the very short term, in the long term they ended up looking at it as a serious negative in their lives later on. Early sexual involvement is positively correlated with relationship dissatisfaction later in life. This was regardless of religious or cultural affiliation, suggesting it's probably got little to nothing to do with shaming from other people.

 

Think about it. Is it still molestation if the abuser convinces the child they want it? Well, yes, of course it is. It doesn't change anything about the psychological effect this has on people who are not psychologically developed enough to meaningfully consent. And how fucking creepy!

 

Two teachers double teaming a student creeps me out.

 

I don't know what age that changes, or if it's necessarily the case that this teen was too young, I don't know. I just know that willingness mean nothing.

[J. D. Stembal]

I dont know about you guys but I would consider myself lucky if this happened to me.

 

(Kevin Beal beats me to the punch every time.)

 

I'd say that you are not being sensitive to the victims of sexual crimes, and you are trivializing it by thinking that sleeping with two females at the same is every straight man's masturbatory fantasy. Unless you have a rare condition, known as diphallia, sex with two women at once is a waste of time (and condoms).

 

Once upon a time, I was solicited into a menage-e-trois by two women. They were my peers, and not in any position of authority over me. However, afterward, one of the women began making the kinds of comments most women would find reprehensible if directed at them. She was slut shaming me, sexually harassing me. She would say, "We used you up like a piece of meat," or "Don't think you're a man; you're a dog." Just as you claimed in your post, I was feeling a little high and mighty about the sexual encounter and relished the thought of doing it again. After the derogatory comments. however, I lost the desire, and eventually felt bitter about the encounter even though I thoroughly enjoyed it at the time. I'm not claiming that I was the victim of a sex crime three way. I clearly consented to it, and I was a legal adult, but looking back on that time, I have a severe case of buyer's remorse.

 

The emotional cost was way too high to sell myself short like that, especially to a vile person who would rub my face in it. I hope this helps give you some of my personal perspective. Feel lucky that this hasn't happened to you even outside of the monopoly of public school violence.

[Agalloch]

(Kevin Beal beats me to the punch every time.)

 

I'd say that you are not being sensitive to the victims of sexual crimes, and you are trivializing it by thinking that sleeping with two females at the same is every straight man's masturbatory fantasy. Unless you have a rare condition, known as diphallia, sex with two women at once is a waste of time (and condoms).

 

Once upon a time, I was solicited into a menage-e-trois by two women. They were my peers, and not in any position of authority over me. However, afterward, one of the women began making the kinds of comments most women would find reprehensible if directed at them. She was slut shaming me, sexually harassing me. She would say, "We used you up like a piece of meat," or "Don't think you're a man; you're a dog." Just as you claimed in your post, I was feeling a little high and mighty about the sexual encounter and relished the thought of doing it again. After the derogatory comments. however, I lost the desire, and eventually felt bitter about the encounter even though I thoroughly enjoyed it at the time. I'm not claiming that I was the victim of a sex crime three way. I clearly consented to it, and I was a legal adult, but looking back on that time, I have a severe case of buyer's remorse.

 

The emotional cost was way too high to sell myself short like that, especially to a vile person who would rub my face in it. I hope this helps give you some of my personal perspective. Feel lucky that this hasn't happened to you even outside of the monopoly of public school violence.

None of this is an argument. "This is rape because I say sex with two women at once is a waste of time". Also, disliking the act after the event is not the same as it not being every straight man's masturbatory fantasy; you can be disapointed in things you definitely wanted.

 

Also (and damn are there a lot of also's here), your terrible taste in sexual partners has nothing todo with other people's standards or integrity; your argument there is like saying other people shouldn't eat Salad because you took a piss in one once and then hated the taste of it. Of course you had a bad experience if you chose - and you did choose, the propaganda of saying you were "solicited into" is only a way of avoiding personal responsibility - to have this experience with terrible women. However, it's perfectly possible to have the same experience following sex with a single person as well, and that's also not an argument against two-way sex.

 

Furthermore, while wanting to be talked to in a such a way after sex might be unhealthy, there's a difference between unhealthy and unwanted. While you didn't want it in this situation, the occurence of "slut shaming" language isn't necessarily unsolicited by other people and is again not an argument against it. Also, how is that "slut shaming"? Did you not engage in these acts? And did you not voluntarily choose to do it with a women who would talk like that after?

 

None of this is to attack your own personal experience, I'm terribly sorry that it made you feel negatively about the act, and much more importantly, that it made you feel negatively about yourself. I hope you have overcome whatever problems made you choose to engage in this act with awful people. However, to be clear, none of this anecdote makes for an argument; it's not even attempting to claim Universality, i doubt even half of voluntary situations of this kind are as bad as your own.

 

So I agree people should be happy that they didn't experience language they would later feel to be sexual harassment following intercourse, but that has absolutely nothing todo with this discussion.

[J. D. Stembal]

You are correct. None of my anecdote was intended as an argument, but rather an expression of my emotional reaction to Ferssitar's comment.

 

Thank you for your sympathies. I accept that I shouldn't have put myself in a position like that. However, you haven't expressed a logical or philisophical argument about the topic at hand, either - and neither did Ferssitar.

 

Do you think a student should feel lucky to have sex with two teachers, assuming it is voluntary? Is it rape? Why or why not?

[Agalloch]

That would have to be a massive "I don't know". For one thing, I'm not sure how much cultural bias plays into the arguments. In the UK, where I am, the age of consent is 16 and so all the arguments regarding the importance of the age of 18 seem very alien. While that might be my bias though, it seems the argument is based upon a factoid stating that the brain doesn't fully develop until you're about 25, which clearly isn't 18. Also, I have no idea of the actual importance of "brain development". The concept is a biological, not moral one, and nothing ivecread proves the moral distinctiveness of decisions made before the time; it is not a point at which we suddenly have perfect logic, nor are we unable to be perfectly reasonable before.

 

Then we have arguments from power. In the UK, the age of consent goes up to 18 in teacher-student relationships. That's a very short period of time over which peoples development can vary widely. If the argument being made against this relationship would apply irrelevant of the age of the student, I'd be much more sympathetic to it. Otherwise, I don't see why an underdeveloped 18 year old or overdeveloped 16 year old really differ here.

 

I'm mich more sympathetic to the statist power argymemt. This student was at school against his will. These teachers were funded and empowered by a monopoly on violence against him. However, the event took place away from school at a location he was unlikely to be involuntarily and we have little information regarding the build up to this event. I don't know whether nothing can possibly be voluntary in these situations, especially when the student so clearly desired it, and I don't see the age problem.

 

Arent arguments about age and sex an infanisation of teenagers? I'm not suggesting they're perfectly reasonable, neither are adults, but I extend them all the same rights as adults in all other aspects of their lives, why is sex so special? Of course, less rationally I find it disgusting and always, but that's not a reasonable argument.

[J. D. Stembal]

I wasn't as concerned with the age of the student as statutory rapes laws are complete arbitrary, as you know. I do find it disgusting that one of the teachers is twice the student's age. Just try to universalize it. I'm 35. What if I started having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old? In some states in the US, 17 is the legal age of consent (16 in a couple others). Even if I could prove that this sexual arrangement makes way more reproductive sense than dating a woman my age (less eggs), I would be morally castigated for "taking advantage" of a younger woman, even by other men.

 

How do you know the act was voluntary on the part of the student? Do you know he wanted it? Can a minor voluntarily decide to have sexual relations with a legal guardian? More importantly, why do two female teachers want to have sex with a student when they can meet other men who would be perfectly happy to get banged in a three-way? It's about control and domination. There is obviously an ego or power trip involved here on the part of the teachers, so they could act out their prior childhood abuse.

 

If we were concerned over the infantilization of teenagers, we wouldn't force them into schools to be raped by pedophiles in the first place.

[Agalloch]

 

More importantly, why do two female teachers want to have sex with a student when they can meet other men who would be perfectly happy to get banged in a three-way? It's about control and domination.

 

 

This definitely spoke to me. I'm not sure, still, that it is an argument, but it definitely speaks to the completely fucked up motivations of the teachers. As I said before though, wanting to be dominated/controlled is not immoral, just a sign of psychological damage.

 

Note, I didn't say the act of voluntary, just that it didn't look involuntary. My position remains, "I don't know".

 

I don't specifically see anything wrong with you, at 35, dating a 17 year old. However, I wouldn't do that and I'm aware that I wouldn't associate with you if you did. So either I'm being dishonest with you, or myself; I'm going to have to have a good think about that. Before philosophy, and at school, I had overtly repulsive reactions to female students dating older guys, which I never found the cause of, perhaps an unhealthy form of jealousy. But it was an emotional reaction which has made me wary of value judegements.

 

You state that the age of the student wasn't a concern, but then you ask whether a minor can voluntarily engage in sexual relations with a "legal guardian". I'm no so certain about that title for the position of Statist Teacher, but I can't help but see the implication of age there. Also note, I don't force them into schools, I'm against that, so that doesn't really speak to my infantilisation comment. Also, "raped by pedophiles" is sort of begging the question and the end of a post discussing whether that is the case, and I while I have "I don't knows" about the rape, to me it is clearly not pedophilia.

 

EDIT:  For some reason I lost the quote on the first paragraph, that should be quoting EndTheUsurpation. Also, while I'm hear, I think I misinterpreted your first comment on age, so my final paragraph is probably wrong, apologies. And finally, I probably won't post again. Every single post I've made on this topic has "required moderator approval" and it's tiring, I don't wish to be censored so I'll be going back to barely posting.

 

EDIT2: Modification didn't require approval? So i recommend anyone whose post won't get by the censors, put the controversial commentary in a modification.

[J. D. Stembal]

Putting exact ages aside, would you morally object to a step-parent (legal guardian, not biological parent) from having a sexual relationship with their child?

[Agalloch]

Yes. But not because of the "legal guardian" part, but the "parent" part. Perhaps it is intended, or should be, that Teachers are parental figures, but that doesn't fit with my experience at all. More specifically, a step-parent takes (should take) on the responsibilities of parenthood. A teacher is an educator, and carer, but I don't know if that includes parental responsibilities, or more importantly, if a teenager views it enough like a parental relationship for it to be abusive. I'm also not sure how relevant any of that is when the relationship is still basically violent and abusive because of the Statism anyway.

[J. D. Stembal]

Yes. But not because of the "legal guardian" part, but the "parent" part. Perhaps it is intended, or should be, that Teachers are parental figures, but that doesn't fit with my experience at all. More specifically, a step-parent takes (should take) on the responsibilities of parenthood. A teacher is an educator, and carer, but I don't know if that includes parental responsibilities, or more importantly, if a teenager views it enough like a parental relationship for it to be abusive. I'm also not sure how relevant any of that is when the relationship is still basically violent and abusive because of the Statism anyway.

 

Governments aside, is it ethical for a teacher or parent to have a sexual relationship with their child/student? I used the term step-parent and legal guardian to avoid the incest taboo being taken into consideration. What I'm trying to get at here is the relationship between parent and child is analogous to the relationship between teacher and student. They are both in a position of authority over the younger persons in the equation.

[James Dean]

Right now, I don't like the "not sufficiently developed" argument, because the brain only fully develops at age 25 - which would mean that 25 should be the minimum legal age for any individual to consent to sex.

 

Well, sufficiently developed is different than fully developed. I could sharpen an axe until it was sufficiently sharp to cut down a tree, that would not mean that the axe was as sharp as it could possibly be.

 

I don't know how you would judge that, but the distinction is important. I think the more important figure than the age of the person in question is the difference in age between the two people. two kids at age 5, of any sex, who are curious about each others genitalia and engage in touching of some sort is different than a person of 35 doing the same to a 5 year old. Obviously an extreme example but the principal is clear.

 

 

There's a difference between becoming so used to years upon years of abuse that they embrace it as good or a necessary evil yet rarely if ever talk about it, to something that just happened and they not only think of it as good, they think of it as something that makes them a more valuable person, to the point that they're bragging about it so much that everybody in the school knew.

 

In my experience, men are so socially conditioned to think that they're just mindless sex machines and are always thinking about sex anyway. Many men are repeatedly taught, over a period of decades, that their value to other men depends, in part, on how successful they are at having sex with women. So I think the analogy is appropriate.

 

In addition, the boy was probably also hit as a child and so is used to having to pretend he likes abuse. It's not as if the human brain doesn't use behavior schemas from other experiences and applies them to new experiences. If he's in the habit of bragging about the abuse he suffered (as in, "man, my mom put a whoopin on my something fierce... damn she was mad! hahah!") why is it illogical to think he would not apply the same pattern here?

 

Again, I don't know if rape is the right word here, but certainly it's not OK, and people should be very sensitive to the boys perception of it and offer him therapy should he choose.

 

 

Arent arguments about age and sex an infanisation of teenagers?

 

I think you could make a point that, under better parenting conditions, a 16-year-old could be capable of consenting to sex. However it's a moot point because we are all kept so emotionally stunted. We are not infantilizing him, he has already been infantilized, we are just attempting to accurately convey his emotional state. Treating a bunch of cripples like they couldn't walk would not be insulting to them, though it would be insulting to someone able-bodied.

[MMX2010]

Well, sufficiently developed is different than fully developed. I could sharpen an axe until it was sufficiently sharp to cut down a tree, that would not mean that the axe was as sharp as it could possibly be.

 

I don't know how you would judge that, but the distinction is important. I think the more important figure than the age of the person in question is the difference in age between the two people. two kids at age 5, of any sex, who are curious about each others genitalia and engage in touching of some sort is different than a person of 35 doing the same to a 5 year old. Obviously an extreme example but the principal is clear.

 

Sorry to be precise, but I would say, "The distinction is important if and only if you want to be open-minded and scientifically-thorough in this discussion.  If not, that distinction is unimportant." 

 

In my opinion, there are three very different answers.

 

(1) Scientific studies of full brain maturity ONLY leads to the ultra simple answer, "No one shall have sexual intercourse of any kind before age 25."

 

(2) Non-scientific studies of "gender equality" leads to the convoluted answer, "It's impossible to say when a person's brain is sufficiently mature to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, BUT I know that consensual sexual intercourse should be between equals."  Rollo Tomassi's article on The Curse of Jung illustrates this principle quite well. 

 

Article - http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/

 

Crucial Paragraphs: "One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into societies collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back it’s origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

 

Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality'; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was born."

 

(3) Scientific studies of sexual market value lead to the completely opposite answer, which goes something like, "The purpose of men is to be as masculine as possible; the purpose of women is to be as feminine as possible.  This will naturally lead to large age differences in long-term relationships, such that the coupling of a 38 year old man and a 25 year old woman is natural and expected." 

 

These three answers are only the gateway to a more thorough understanding of modern political/sexual dynamics.  They are not the end of the discussion.  But most people are thoroughly unaware of those three answers, and are especially unaware of the scientific / philosophical roots of those answers. 

[James Dean]

(1) Scientific studies of full brain maturity ONLY leads to the ultra simple answer, "No one shall have sexual intercourse of any kind before age 25."

 

I'm a bit confused here, my point was that you don't need full brain maturity to consent to sex, you do however need the amount of brain maturity that allows you to understand the decision you are making and the consequences it will have. When this point is, I have no idea, it could be well before 16 or it could be closer to your early 20's. This is not even to mention that most people, most likely including the man from the article in question, have had their brain development severely stunted by physical abuse, emotional trauma, and violent and abusive school systems. So I do think that brain maturity maters in the discussion.

 

(3) Scientific studies of sexual market value lead to the completely opposite answer, which goes something like, "The purpose of men is to be as masculine as possible; the purpose of women is to be as feminine as possible.  This will naturally lead to large age differences in long-term relationships, such that the coupling of a 38 year old man and a 25 year old woman is natural and expected." 

 

I'm not sure how that follows. I could see how physiologically that coupling is more beneficial, but what about psychologically? a 38 year old man who dates a 25 year old woman is either saying that the woman is 13 years beyond her physical age, quite an astounding feat, or that he is 13 years below his physical age. Men are biological inclined to have sex with younger women, but this does not mean that it's a good idea or will lead to a long stable relationship. Men are also inclined to sleep with as many sexual partners as they can to ensure the diversity of their offspring, but we don't do this because our biological impulses don't account for a long term happiness (simply because they developed when we really didn't live "long term.") We mostly choose to ignore our base biological instincts when they directly counteract our long-term happiness or self interest; that's what the prefrontal cortex does, and it's for that reason that we dominated the planet as the most successful species in the history of the earth. To then make an argument from lizard-brain instinct seems to eschew the very thing that lead us to "biological-success" in the first place

[MMX2010]

I'm a bit confused here, my point was that you don't need full brain maturity to consent to sex, you do however need the amount of brain maturity that allows you to understand the decision you are making and the consequences it will have. When this point is, I have no idea, it could be well before 16 or it could be closer to your early 20's. This is not even to mention that most people, most likely including the man from the article in question, have had their brain development severely stunted by physical abuse, emotional trauma, and violent and abusive school systems. So I do think that brain maturity maters in the discussion.

 

 

I understand your point - both in this post and your earlier one.  Since you don't (yet) grasp mine, I think I didn't make my original point clear enough. 

 

Part One - "Maturity" is a subjective concept, and I automatically think of Religion whenever discussing subjective concepts. 

 

"Tolerant" believers in subjective concepts are open-minded enough to realize that their arguments ARE NOT truths that should be imposed on everyone.  You showed "tolerant" behavior when you admitted that "You have no idea when the brain is sufficiently mature enough to consent to sex." - and I admire you for that. 

 

Unfortunately, most believers are "Intolerant" because they mistake their subjective opinions as objective truths, and then try to impose those opinions on everyone else.  Most people who discuss "sufficient brain maturity to consent to sex" are "Intolerant", and I find their intolerance annoying. 

 

Part Two - Always try to replace a subjective concept with an objective one, even if only to see what happens. 

 

I did this when asserting that one possible answer would be to declare, "No one under age 25 may consent to sex, enter into legally binding contracts, get married, have children, vote in elections, nor anything else considered 'Adult Behavior'."  I don't know whether you like this idea, but you have to admit that the idea uses a Universally-Defined Objective Standard. 

 

And if you spend a couple of hours reflecting upon it, you might come to like it.  There'd be so much fewer children born out of impulse, and so many neglected children become criminals (or costly in other ways).  Thus, a ban on younger-than-25's having children may lead to many positive outcomes. 

 

However, the most important thing about the "25 years old" argument is that it replaces the subjective concept "sufficiently mature" with the completely objective measurement "fully mature". 

 

Part Three - When you disliked my assertion that "many 38 year old men would inevitably date 25 year old women", you uses an equalist notion of "maturity" - which is, again, a subjective concept. 

 

My support, however, is based on Rollo Tomassi's research into Sexual Market Value - (SMV). 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/

 

Both a 38 year old man and a 25 year old woman are at the peaks of their Sexual Market Values, which is why such a relationship is both natural and probably successful.  Simple...as....that.    

 

----------------------------

 

I don't know how much of Rollo Tomassi's work you've read, but if you're not familiar with it, you'll probably experience a lot of disorientation, confusion, and probably hostility while reading it.  And it's also impossible for me to summarize all of his work in a single topic, but I can provide two anecdotal examples. 

 

(1) When a 22 year old woman begins dating a 22 year old man, they may get married at age 25.  Such an arrangement is glorified by those who believe in an equalist definition of maturity, but those who accept SMV will understand the weakness of such a marriage.  The woman, being at the peak of her SMV, will hold most of the power in the marriage.  She will constantly test him for "alpha characteristics", of which he doesn't possess because he has neither been taught them, nor naturally grown into them.  When he accumulates enough "failures", she'll divorce him - (usually at around age 29 or 31) - to "cash out" and "not blow her only chance to find true love". 

 

(2) I'm 38 and can easily imagine dating someone as young as 18, and I already know how to navigate many of the social challenges.  I enjoy reading about other men like me, who've been told by women their own age, "Looks like you enjoy doing your shopping in the juniors department." 

 

I can easily deflect questions like, "What do you two even talk about?" - (which is a passive-aggressive dig at either her perceived immaturity, or mine, or both) - with silly answers like "We talk about what we talk about, and never talk about what we never talk about." or "We talk about how she has to sleep with me every day, whether she likes to or not, because I might die of a heart attack tomorrow." OR with serious answers like, "We talk about what she likes to talk about.  If I feel the need for something more mature / intellectual, I just go online to certain message boards.  In time, I can easily see her becoming more and more interested in such topics; if I didn't, I wouldn't be dating her." 

 

And I can also see myself cavalierly hanging out with her friends, while wearing a white wig, carrying a cane, and limping along.    Defiance, coupled with strength and a sense of humor, are the constant prescriptions. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/14/amused-mastery/

 

The takeaway paragraph from that article: "And thus we come full circle; Amused Mastery is a form of social dominance. That sense of knowing the answer before the question is asked, but still giving the answer with a smirk is a very effective form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). An attitude of Amused Mastery begins from a default position of social dominance."

 

------------------

 

I hope that was helpful. 

 

If you find Rollo's articles confusing, you may have to read every article associated with "the rational male best of year one" before you get a full grasp. 

 

Edited to add: Part Three of my post implies that "sufficiently mature enough to consent to sex" is an abstract, subject concept that doesn't really exist - and casts it aside to implement Sexual Market Value instead.

[Agalloch]

Governments aside, is it ethical for a teacher or parent to have a sexual relationship with their child/student? I used the term step-parent and legal guardian to avoid the incest taboo being taken into consideration. What I'm trying to get at here is the relationship between parent and child is analogous to the relationship between teacher and student. They are both in a position of authority over the younger persons in the equation.

I don't understand, you write like you haven't read my previous post, you just skimmed it, guessed I was disagreeing with you and then carried on. For example, I know your point was that you think the parent and child relationship is analogous to a teacher student one, and asked questions about the validity of that. I can't just take it to be true and continue from there, because then we aren't necessarily having a conversation about reality.

 

I also can't put Governments aside, as they heavily affect the teacher student relationship and therefore the validity of that analogy. Most importantly, a Parent is NOT in a position of authority over a child. A Parent is in a position of power, but has no moral authority over the child. They have a responsibility to the child and physical power because of necessity, but they have no justified rights over and above or to reject the wishes of the child. And this is exactly why I don't support the relationship between step-parent and child. A step parent takes on these responsibilities, and can only harm them through inappropriate interaction. The Authoritarian Teacher, at least in this situation, has not taken on those responsibilities, and at best, it is the parent that is at fault for forcing the child into the authority of the teacher.

 

Also, "child/student" isn't an almost synonymous differentiation. Infact it comes over as propaganda, child implies young age, but you specifically suggested we put aside ages. Would a teacher that engaged with a 24 year old student/child be in the same moral position?

[J. D. Stembal]

 

Most importantly, a Parent is NOT in a position of authority over a child.

 

Also, "child/student" isn't an almost synonymous differentiation. Infact it comes over as propaganda, child implies young age, but you specifically suggested we put aside ages. Would a teacher that engaged with a 24 year old student/child be in the same moral position?

 

Please explain how a parent is not in a position of authority over their children. Contrast it to the role of teachers and their students. We aren't talking about graduate students in this thread as far as I'm aware.

 

Also...

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/28096948/madison-teacher-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-student

[labmath2]

How much responsibility should the 16 year old take for his actions if he expresses that we willingly took part in the act?

 

P.S. If a 16 year old (someone who we do not trust to make decisions about who he sleeps with) has sex with another 16 year old (another person we do not trust to make decisions about who she sleeps with), its somehow ok?

[Agalloch]

Please explain how a parent is not in a position of authority over their children. Contrast it to the role of teachers and their students. We aren't talking about graduate students in this thread as far as I'm aware.

 

Also...

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/28096948/madison-teacher-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-student

A parent isn't in a position of authority over a child because, they have no authority over the child.