Letters to the Editor
-
@ Parson Jim
I also agree with your last point and I am sure Juliebird will take it in the spirit in which you offer it. She is usually quite sensitive to our language choices.
Part if the problem is that we have all been affected with certain literary tropes. Seduction seems sexy. The forbidden is drama. As someone who writes fiction, for instance, I often address circumstances and my characters often make bad choices and put their conscience at risk. I believe women are especially susceptible to "romantic" interpretations. I think we probably will, in some instances at least, get closer to the truth of some of the actions of women who molest boys, by understanding some of them as more emotionally than merely sexually driven. Or rather, emotion is the gloss that they decorate their lusts with. The result is no less harmful of course.
These are selfish, careless people however you look at it. They put their own interests before those of young people who cannot entirely judge the long term effects of the sexual activity. It is really, really damaging to people to end up with no boundaries as a consequence of abuse. Boundaries are what keep us safe. They are also what keep us respectful of others.
Sometimes, I think that people under 25 simply should not be teaching in the public schools. Let them get their master's degree. It is good for them, like vegetables, and they will be better teachers in their subject area in the long run. Of course, then we would actually have to pay them more.
-
maybe you missed it Smith but he was saying that even when both parties are OVER 21 certain relationships should still be illegal
once you cross that threshold what limit is there in principle to how much the govt. can interfere in anyones sex life. None.
-
under 25 is it now, I would think even you can see the problem, you can't be president until you are 35
maybe people aren't REALLY mature and responsible until then. Maybe you think the laws should more generally reflect that "fact".
-
Misquoted
"maybe you missed it Smith but he was saying that even when both parties are OVER 21 certain relationships should still be illegal
once you cross that threshold what limit is there in principle to how much the govt. can interfere in anyones sex life. None."
I said no such thing.
-
I find this discussion disturbing
What on Earth is with all of the NAMBLA advocates here? I ask this as a man sick and tired of hearing NAMBLA, pedophile, and gay used as synonyms, and as a gay man who is truly disgusted by the aims of NAMBLA (and apparently the aims of nearly half of the letter-writers here) to turn children into sex objects, on the despicable ideas that 1) they want it, and 2) that it will be good for them.
I hope that posters realize that there is no functional difference between their position that it's a lovely thing for young boys to have sex with their female teachers, and the position of NAMBLA that older men (presumably including teachers) should be allowed to have sex with young boys, too. Yet, somehow, I imagine that some of these posters would react severely to the idea that boys seduced and molested by older men aren't victims. What is the difference, other than base homophobia? Of course they're victims, regardless of gender and regardless of orientation. The mere fact that a boy has to have an erection and orgasm to impregnate a female teacher does not excuse the abuse and manipulation that led to that copulation.
Obviously, teens (generally) want to have sex, whenever and with whomever they want. That doesn't mean that they should have it, any more than they should be allowed to drive the family car whenever and wherever they choose, or eat whatever they want, or use whatever drugs they want, or anything else. They have an under-developed sense of judgment, and thus must rely on adults to assist them in making more reasonable choices. The further removed I become from my teenaged years, the more I realize just how immature and foolish I was, even though I was mature for my age.
In regard to the writer who pointed out that his grandparents had a sort of intergenerational relationship, so what? A century and a half ago, we sent tweenage boys out on sailing warships to serve as junior officers. My great-grandfather worked all day in coal mines from the age of nine. Those weren't bright ideas, either. We've evolved as a culture since then, and recognize that children deserve some protection from the capriciousness of adults.
So it goes with sex. Young kids shouldn't have sex, at all, and older teens should be taught to be careful and try to consider the consequences, but NEVER should young people be put in a position where an adult in a position of authority engages in sexual activity with them. As other posters have said most eloquently, it is not about the sex itself, but about the abuse of trust behind it, and the manipulation that goes along with it. At some point, a youth is old enough to choose to engage in sex and/or romance with an older parter, and whether that age should be 15, 18, or somewhere in between is something best left to psychologists to determine, but even then, it should be illegal for an authority figure to cavort with a minor in that fashion, even if the minor thinks they want it at the time. The stories of long-term damage wrought by this are real and compelling.
We should encourage boys to develop their own identity, and we must not demand that they conform to the macho image of the stud who cavalierly sleeps his way through a dozen women without feeling a thing. Boys abused by teachers, priests, nuns, coaches, camp counselors, and the like have the right to be treated as victims, even if at first they seem happy about it, and girls have the right to the same. And abusers of boys or girls deserve an immediate trip to the nearest jail.
-
Not you, but an anonymous said: After 21 they should have full ability to consent to any adult who is not a teacher, boss, shrink, doctor, etc.
This means that you can't give consent EVEN IF OVER 21, if the other person is a doctor, shrink, etc.
-
I know it's late, but another thing...
My grandfather married my grandmother in 1917 when he was 18 and she was 25. She came from a very traditional Irish Catholic family and was extremely sheltered. My grandfather, in fact, earned my great-grandmother’s eternal ire by taking her baby girl and moving out of the house. He was expected to move in and share the house with her entire extended family. They had a very traditional, chaperoned courtship and I doubt seriously my grandmother had a lot of sexual secrets to “teach” my grandfather. They were married until my grandmother’s death in 1966. They had a similar age difference to what we’re discussing here, totally different situation.
I myself am 8 years older than my husband. We met when he was 29 and I was 37. The issue here is not “intergenerational” relationships, it’s adults in authority who have sex with teenagers. To compare the two is just plain silly. There are a million different variations regarding age and relationships and lots of gray areas. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. However, an adult teacher, male or female,having sex with a teenage student, male or female, is wrong. I find it very disturbing that so many people are defending it.
And…everything commendatore said.