My point was that BC kept asserting (a) that no harm could possibly have been done, (even though he knew neither the teacher nor the kid,) and (b) that he didn’t understand why the boy told. Do you not see a disconnect there?

…Going to bed now.

The teenager told his parents, who reported the incident to school administrators this week.

Teacher Charged With Statutory Rape

Thinking with one’s feelings is a sure route to error.

The boys likely reported the encounter because their parents insisted.

What sense does that make? Why would the parents insist on the boys reporting the encounter before the parents even knew about it? Do you insist on your kids reporting things that you don’t know happened? “Tell me that you had sex with your teacher!” “But I haven’t, Dad!”

BC says:

SgtDad’s response to Laura is as good as any I would’ve written — that the boys ultimately fessed up doesn’t in and of itself imply that they didn’t consider it a benign experience — and so I’ll leave it at that.

But you still don’t know why they reported it, right? Still inexplicable to you?

BC: …I’m simply observing that out here in the real world, young men tend not to turn down sex, and so I’m always surprised when one fesses up to a “hot for teacher” scenario.

Oh, I’m sure many “fess up” to anybody who will listen…

Had this happened to one of my sisters, or my daughter, that would have been altogether a different thing. I know them well enough to conclude they would have been harmed.

The fact is, boys & girls are put together differently.

And I still think Blakely is the interesting issue. From what I can tell, none of the factors listed in the comments were found by the jury to be facts. If that is so, the judge has no business using those factors when considering sentence.

BTP: As the cops said in “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy”,Nice…

I still can’t get over the image of Kyle poping up out of the tub with his snorkel gear.

Nice…

I think 12 years for having sex with a 17 y/o boy is excessive. But accusing him of rape is a SERIOUS aggravating circumstance.

When I was 17 I would have jumped at having sex with someone like her. But her rape charges could have ended in the boy being labeled a sex offender. That ain’t right!

Lee
(Conflicted)

Anderson: Do any parents of 17-year-olds have an opinion?My older boy’s 14, but if his teacher poaches on him before he’s out of high school, there will be hell to pay. And I don’t think that’s a terribly prudish reaction. To say nothing of how his *mother* would feel.

BC: I’m simply observing that out here in the real world, young men tend not to turn down sex, and so I’m always surprised when one fesses up to a “hot for teacher” scenario.

Yet they seem to fess up to them all the time, which seems to indicate that their their libido isn’t very good at decision-making beyond their immediate rooting interests (so to speak), that other factors — adult factors — come into play that they aren’t ready to deal with yet. That’s why it’s important that the adults in their lives must be trustworthy enough not be looking to take advantage of their penis-guided brains.
I’m surprised by the length of the sentence, but not disappointed. If this had happened to my son, I’d push for the maximum legal sentence as well.

Laura(southernxyl): Maybe he’s equating manliness with turning down sex with unattractive women. Because real men only look at a woman’s appearance; her personality and character are unimportant to them. Also, even if a real man is seventeen and the object of his desire is in her thirties, sex with her represents a “conquest” and not a mutually agreed-upon, mutually pleasurable experience.

Or maybe, like Cornellian, I’m pointing out the perfectly obvious and uncontroversial fact that the libido of the average 17-year-old male is such that he’s unlikely to turn down the sexual advances of a reasonably-attractive female of the species, even if she happens to be twice his age.

Good grief, Laura: if there’s some sort of Internet prize for obtuseness you’ve certainly won it running away (as opposed to mischief, who’s just plain lying about what I’ve said in this thread). This isn’t hard stuff: it’s not academic navel-gazing about gender constructs. I do not equate sexual libertinism with masculinity, and if pressed would actually argue that real manliness is exhibited through chastity, commitment, and monogamy. I’m simply observing that out here in the real world, young men tend not to turn down sex, and so I’m always surprised when one fesses up to a “hot for teacher” scenario.

Laura(southernxyl): Maybe he’s equating manliness with turning down sex with unattractive women.

Men don’t turn down sex with unattractive women. We just act as if we would.

To me, the legal question is whether Blakely applies.

I’m not equating manliness with never turning down sex. I’m pointing out that the average 17-year-old male would probably be delighted, not mortified, by the prospect of sex with his reasonably-attractive high school teacher; and that he and his peers would probably look upon it as a conquest, not abuse.

You’re equating manliness with never turning down sex. You not only point that out, you argue that the law ought to presume that.

How can there be different laws on sex between persons based on one’s job since those would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th?

Rational connection to a legitimate government interest.

On the other hand, if, when my son was a teenager, I learned that a female teacher and my son had sex, my inclination would be to … do nothing at first, but investigate the context. I might ask if my son could be moved to a different classroom, or to a different school, but I wouldn’t be inclined – as an initial reaction – to want the teacher to face 14+ years of jailtime. Conversely, the man who had sex with my daughter can go to jail – and then to hell – no matter what the circumstances.

I’d bet that most fathers – certainly most in my orbit – would have the same initial reaction after hearing about their daughters having sex, yet have a much more context-dependent response after hearing about their sons have sex.

I guess I’m living in an alternative universe, filled with dads with weird views about the way things are. I’d probably justify my views by stating that sons can’t get pregnant but daughters can, and noting that the consequences of the latter are more severe than the former. But, alas, my justification would be a post-hoc rationalization, having no bearing on my reaction to the events.

Frankly I can think of plenty of seventeen year old girls who would not have been victimized if the sexes had been reversed, but I am all for the treating of the situation equally. The legal stance is that a 17 year old is not mature enough to do much of anything (maybe drive and that is even disappearing, an 18 year old can be given a gun and go shoot things, and a 21 year old can drink.)

And that legal stance is utterly ridiculous. A 17-year-old isn’t a child, and the law shouldn’t be treating it as a child, whether for sex law, labor law, contract law, or anything else.

Anatid: Interesting phenomenon I observe in people: You tend to forget what you were like when you were younger.Specifically, you forget what you were like as a teenager.You forget why jumping off the roof into the pool, riding a boogie board, seemed like a good idea.You forget why algebra once seemed hard.You forget that the opposite sex was, for a few years, a completely alien species.You forget that $20 was a lot of a money, that six months into the future was forever, that a single year of age difference meant vast gaps in maturity.Maybe you also forgot being a nervous virgin with little guidance on what was supposed to be “right” except for friends’ gossip, teen movies, and glares from your parents.

I remember full well what it was like to be a teenager, since it wasn’t that long ago and it left a very strong impression. I was unfortunate enough to not be able to get rid of my virginity until I was 22 and had already graduated college. If I’d had my way it would have been gone almost a decade earlier. Along the way I had several teachers who while I might have hesitated because of the whole teacher/student thing (I took pride in my A’s, wouldn’t want anyone to think I’d got them unfairly), I’d have happily and voluntarily been their “statutory rape victim” if they’d wanted.

I wish they had interviewed the 17 year old for that story, and not in the presence of his parents. I’d bet serious money there’s no way he wants to see her in prison at all, let alone for 12 years.

Then why did he tell his parents about it in the first place?

I see some serious denial here.

Cornellian: The one thing that I think really hurts the teacher’s case is that, according to the story, she originally claimed she was raped, presumably in order to save herself. If there’s anything that could justify that insane sentence, this is it.

Does this surprise you? Do you expect a teacher who sleeps with an underaged student to be morally upright, as opposed to a filthy sleazeball?

The judge said it didn’t matter if the children involved were 7 or 17, they were entitled to protection at school.

Is that judge really so dense that he cannot see any difference between sex with a 17 year old and sex with a 7 year old? How many guys here when they were 17 would have turned down the opportunity for sex with a not bad-looking teacher in her mid-30s? Anyone? anyone? Didn’t think so.

I wish they had interviewed the 17 year old for that story, and not in the presence of his parents. I’d bet serious money there’s no way he wants to see her in prison at all, let alone for 12 years.

Laura(southernxyl): Seriously, you are looking at this from the point of view of the teenage boy with his nose pressed to the candy store window.

I’m pretty sure that was abundantly clear from my first post, when I marvelled that a 17-year-old boy would confess to the affair in the first place.

From the point of view of the woman — why would she risk prison if it’s only sex she’s after? Answer: She wouldn’t, she’s not after only sex.

Yup, and it’s completely inconceivable that she’s just an idiot, or crazy, or that her lust temporarily overrode her brain. After all, human behavior is perfectly susceptible to rational explanation when love and sex are concerned.

As for parents getting worked up: my day job involves a steady diet of work with the parents of teenagers. It is their nature to give birth to multiple bovines whenever they intuit that their precious little angels are in any way endangered, warranted or not, and irrespective of the teen’s own culpability in the situation. The parental freak-out is indicative of nothing other than that the freakers-outers are, in fact, parents.

Guy: (emphasis mine)So a harsher punishment would be called for if she were ugly? Or if she were a man?

No. Just that said 17-year-old male probably would have been mortified had the woman resembled Helen Thomas.

Your anecdote appears to bear this out. The boy thought the relationship was awesome until the woman started making unreasonable emotional demands on him. That was when he spoke up.

He spoke up after it had gotten bad enough that he had to put aside the machismo teen culture crap and admit to his dad that he wasn’t manly.

Seriously, you are looking at this from the point of view of the teenage boy with his nose pressed to the candy store window. From the point of view of the woman – why would she risk prison if it’s only sex she’s after? Answer: She wouldn’t, she’s not after only sex. The candy is poisonous and the kid doesn’t realize it. That’s why parents get so angry at the thought of their boys being on the receiving end of this.