why don't you report all the men molesting girls you sexist fuck!?!?!

Call me crazy, but most of those incidents should not be crimes.

What about that tattoo artist who pierced the girl's nipples? He's on the list. :)

Besides, men with these predilections enter the priesthood because a male teacher of young children is automatically suspected of being a child molester. Everyone knows that. That leaves the teaching field wide open for equal opportunity molestation.

I don't know. My school days were so boring.

Women who 'molest' male pupils get suspended sentences; men who molest girls get 10 years. Strangely, I have yet to see the women's equality lobbies campaigning to change this.

Women who 'molest' male pupils get suspended sentences; men who molest girls get 10 years

Recently debunked by William Saletan.

So is someone complaining? Sounds like the best kind of take-him-under-her-wing education a boy could ask for.

Hey, a question for y'all? Let's assume there's something like a "culture of sex" -- better and worse ways to do it and enjoy it, etc. Techniques and approaches that people have developed over the years, etc. Patience, flirtation, pacing, attentiveness, intuition, taking-pleasure-in-the-other's-pleasure, deepening the experience, etc.

OK then: this culture-of-sex is a genuine cultural achievement. It's something we don't want to lose track of. It's part of our inheritance. It's genuine knowledge and hard-won wisdom. (And, btw, as far as I can tell, some cultures -- France, India, and Japan come to mind -- have done a much better job of developing a culture-of-sex than other cultures have.)

Like I say, we don't want to lose it. If anything, we want to pass it along, protect it, nurture it, maybe even (in our modest ways) contribute to it.

How do we do so?

It seems inevitable to me to conclude that a certain amount of older/younger sex should not only be tolerated and expected, but should -- in the interests of culture -- be encouraged. Why doom every generation to reinventing the wheel all over again where sex is concerned?

Does anyone see any problem with this line of reasoning? FWIW, I've known a half a dozen friends -- gals and guys alike -- who started off their sex lives with partners much older than they were. In one case, the girl was in her teens and the "boyfriend" was in his 60s. And not of one of them isn't grateful for the fact. All of them feel that they got a much better chance to grow up sexually much more quickly than their friends (ie., the rest of us losers) did, and to start enjoying sex in more sophisticated ways much earlier than their friends did too...

Does anyone see any problem with this line of reasoning?

I don't. A woman I work with had a 6 year long affair with a older man that started when she was 16 and he was 35. He broke it off and married a woman in her early-30s because he wanted to start a family. From her telling, their different life stages on that issue was the only major problem she had with their relationship.

She's shared that part of her life a few times now, and what I have noticed is that the women are very intrigued by her experience.

Obviously I don't know what he was getting out of it for 6 years, but she said that he never pulled the "I'm wiser card" and instead gave her the confidence to do what she thought best and make mistakes. She completely avoided the teen dating angst and the girls twisting themselves around to appeal to boys. Her parents flipped out when they found out a year later and I'm sure it didn't help that he was some kind of family friend. Apparently things smoothed over after they moved in together.

Today, she's married to a guy only 5 years older than her, has a kid, and says she has no regrets. Oh, and she is wicked intelligent too, which my gut tells me probably has a lot to do with a.) her appeal to the older man, b.) that longevity of that relationship, and c.) her claim of no regrets. I'm trying to imagine having a 6 year long affair with a teenage girl but most every teenage girl I know, which aren't many, drive me nuts with their inanity after only a short time.

India with a culture of sex, wasnt India in the news lately for putting curfew on clubs because it promotes immorality?

"Women who 'molest' male pupils get suspended sentences; men who molest girls get 10 years. "

Men/Boys can't cry raped by women because they're the one who's got the stick. Obviously, they enjoyed and wanted it or else it wouldnt happen.

I think teens should only be dated by teens. Everyone has to go through this rite of passage, childish romances. Because if you dont go through it, when you're 45 years old, you'll wonder what you missed when you were a teenager, then try to have a relationship with a teenager. If you went through it, you'll swear you will never want to go through it again.

America with its culture of sex, I just remembered the INS Consul officer who was giving me directions to his house when I was interviewed for citizenship. When i ignored it, two years later, still no citizenship, i learned someone mailed my file to BKK which is an acronym for Bangkok, Thailand.

I read a teen novel, where the author was promoting sex with older
men. Of course the author was a dirty old man. I think teens who got their first experience with old men havelost something, the experience of discovering the joy of physical touches. An old man would probably so technical. Like he would know where to touch exactly for instant gratification, so he would be over the molestation as soon as possible, add another feather to his cap so he can brag it to his other old friend that he still got the mojo.
In short, for older men, its just another sex, for teenagers, the joys are slower but better.

I also think that mothers and fathers should be aware of the novels that teenagers read these days. Make sure that author is not a dirty old man, at least.

Michael, I don't have a problem with age gaps so long as both halves of the relationship are over 16. (I use that as the most reasonable threshhold for intelligent decisionmaking. This will obviously vary between individuals, but you've gotta set the bar somewhere.) The issue here, IMO, is not so much the age gap per se but the conflict of interest -- relationships between teens and people who are in a position of power over them are a no-no because it distorts the professional half of the relationship, and because there's so much potential for abuse there.

That's the libertarian in me speaking, anyway. Now let me put on my conservative hat:

It seems to me that part of our culture of sex is that older people ("older" as in well into their 30s and beyond) shouldn't be chasing teenagers. There's an argument to be made that this serves a purpose: if you take the family as a core unit of society, women and men of that age ought to be settled down and married with child(ren) at that point in their lives. If it becomes socially acceptable for older people to run off with young ones, the results would likely be: A) fewer people settling down early, preferring to play the field longer instead of just picking one person in their age cohort and sticking with them, and B) more broken marriages where one spouse runs off with a 19-year-old. Less social stability (and possibly more overall misery) could well result.

"Women who 'molest' male pupils get suspended sentences; men who molest girls get 10 years

Recently debunked by William Saletan."

Jason: I stand corrected - up to a point. The data in the Slate piece are interesting, but there are so few cases to compare in each category that the validity is doubtful. If we consider the key 'borderline' area - teacher having sex with a pupil aged around 14 to 17 - I still think that female teachers are more likely to get a suspended sentence (or some other light penalty) while a male teacher will do jail time. But my 'ten years' jibe was exaggerated.

Also, I am naturally influenced by British cases, where there have been some prominent cases of women teachers 'getting off'.

When I was 17, there was a trainee teacher at my school for a fortnight, (un)fortunately it coincided with the publication of photos of her appearing in the popular pornographic publication 'Escort'. She was on the front cover as well.

I am not quite sure what Saletan "debunked".

He notes that for every 30-50 men busted, one woman is busted.

Sounds like women don't get probation, they get off scott free.

That used to be the norm years ago. Looks like it is still the case.

When I was lad (as I found out much, much later) a butch PE teacher was busted for molesting High School girl athletes.

They flushed her out of the district to avoid the press, the shame and the disgust it would have brought to the little girl.

She skated clean away.

Young girls get pregnant; young boys don't. Of course young boys can be impregnators of mature teachers, and that thought is enough to make anybody queasy. He certainly would have cause to sue his seducer, especially if his allowance is garnered for child support.
Back to my premise about girls: to get a bit graphic, whatever her external appearance, the undercover sexual equipment of an early to mid-teen girl, is somewhat less developed than that of adult women. The tissue is still thin and easily abraded. There is a correlation between cervical cancer, and other diseases of the female reproductive system, and early or promiscuous sex. Sex with an older man who has "been around" is, statistically speaking, hazardous. It also robs kids of being kids, though some kids don't mind that.
Aside from such practical, physiological considerations, teachers of both sexes breach professional trust when they sexually acost teens. If the teacher is 20, though, it does get a bit "iffy."
Matt's comments were as wise as they are obvious. To extrapolate from there: if some feminists caused problems with the very concept of family, what do you think the likes of Hugh Heffner and his followers have wrought? Are they any better? Two sides of the same coin, and both sides were as inevitable to our current age, as melting snow in the spring, laying bare all our ground.
I shudder at sounding like some neo-con hypocrite using Jesus as a baton, but even they say a true word here and there.

Seems a bit sexist to me...all those women teachers bopping their young students...
Sorry, but back in the 1970's it was common for single male teachers to seduce their female students, both at the high school and college level...but it was considered "normal" and "liberating" back then...
The most underreported "secret" of the sexual revolution is the sexual exploitation of underaged girls...the idea is that they "want" it...but at least one study showed the undergated girls felt obliged to give out sex, and rarely had orgasms or pleasure from the encounters...
At least the boys probably enjoyed it with the female teachers...

I think teens should only be dated by teens. Everyone has to go through this rite of passage, childish romances. Because if you don't go through it, when you're 45 years old, you'll wonder what you missed when you were a teenager, then try to have a relationship with a teenager. If you went through it, you'll swear you will never want to go through it again.


It's not for nothing that someone called us "We, the other Victorians".

Victorian attitudes have the veneer of "conservatism" but in fact are very, very modern: they reek of "State-centralized, planned society".

The idea of teens only dating teens is yet another expression of the obsession with "egalitarianism", which in the end is a form of "puritanism".

There's not a single "traditional" culture that would promote "unsupervised" sex -- definitely not between teenagers. And yet, Victorian conservatism in its modern incantation is asking just for that (as Liv does above).

But wasn't "traditionalism" the bedrock of conservatism? Every genuine conservative (as well as libertarian with a conservative bent -- such as I) knows that there's a wisdom behind the traditional coupling of young females with older males (through arranged marriages), and young males with older females (through traditionally instituted forms of prostitution.)

Sex, by its very nature, is too strong a concoction to be left to "mutual self exploration" or some such modern romantic nonsense mostly cooked up with the female audience in mind. Sex is one of the most socially destabilizing social forces. The reason why most ancient cultures had an "asymmetric" culture of sex that involved minors was to create a socially recognized etiquette, a code of conduct in which social control mechanisms were implanted for the purpose of controlling it at a finer granularity.

The modern, neo-Victorian attitude towards sex: "Let's pretend that it doesn't happen, so that we can pathologize it when it happens".

A seemingly irrelevant example which contains a similar dynamic: My ancestors (Balkan Ottomans) down to 7 generations in our genealogy seem to have shunned divorce -- there's none on record. Modern pop anthropology drums it into the Westerners' heads that Islamic cultures, being inherently misogynistic, abuse women even in the marital institution by making it so easy to divorce, giving that authority solely to men. This "freedom" to divorce is, of course, as widely exercised as a Texan governor's authority to pardon capitol punishment convicts. Anyone with the slightest sense of sociological realities shouldn't be surprised: Until our "no fault divorce" arrived, no one looked at marriage as a primarily "sexual" affair in which once partners (the male one?) got bored, he could dump the wife and move on. Not in his life. Not on this earth. Not with extended families, umpteen financial obligations to offspring, the whole community watching, etc. (And not, mind you, without getting his nuts smashed by the wife's family if there was no verifiable "fault" that called for it.)

If only we could get our Victorian heads out of our tight modern butts on this issue.



I read a teen novel, where the author was promoting sex with older men. Of course the author was a dirty old man. I think teens who got their first experience with old men have lost something, the experience of discovering the joy of physical touches. An old man would probably so technical. Like he would know where to touch exactly for instant gratification, so he would be over the molestation as soon as possible, add another feather to his cap so he can brag it to his other old friend that he still got the moo.

In short, for older men, its just another sex, for teenagers, the joys are slower but better.


Yeah, Liv, you should be a profiler. You've nailed the typical molester: A Don Juan with the magic touch.

I, on the other hand, am "differently-clued", to use John Derbyshire's phrase. Men who are so skilled and smooth at pleasing women hardly make predators for teens. It's generally those with a pathetically inept nature, with a crushing insecurity - making them unable to bond with adult women - who become molestors.

And your idea that teenage sex is something awful that should be gotten over with quickly, never to be remembered fondly, gives a few too many hints that you yourself may not have had a happy teenage period.

I, on the other hand, am, again, differently-clued on that one. I live in a Mediterranean country, and although we have few (if any) teenage pregnancies or some such youth problems, we all get to experience sex in youth, as well. Let me relate from the "male" team.

If you've ever watched a Fellini film or two, you would know what I mean: in most traditional cultures, "hookers" are part of the village. And they take the boys under their wings and teach them the "art". Mine was also the best of times. To this day, I don't have a misogynistic bone in me, exactly because I was introduced to sex by those women. They grabbed you, tossed you in their arms, layed you on your back, and lead you to the heaven of carnal pleasures - all the while they chatted and laughed heartily in their unequalled ways. The whole period was actually a "rite of passage". Their sent, their imperfect bodies, their bodily fluids, their gestures, it all was so naturally part of the "mies en scene" - unlike in the unwanted/unexpected bastard offshoot of the Victorian culture called "pornography". I can't even imagine how dismal it would have been had I had to go through it with a peer -- neither of us knowing anything. (And make no mistake, I'm no submissive. A regular, obsessively dominant male here.)

Now, in my 40s, if I were to show carnal affection to a 16-year old, the last thing on my mind would be to get technical (which is a demand by grown up women whose expectations are higher, so you got that aspect wrong, too). Or rushing it. The joy of reaching the later age for men is, now your unit frequently needs a blood transfusion to... get into "operational" state; you're more interested in caresses, kisses, soft gestures, whispering sweet nothings - in fact, not entirely being involved in the push and shove of that bloody dingling dangling thingling between your legs, but giving affection. Only when you're ripe, giving is more interesting than taking. Only men who have reached this age (unlike 25-year old studs who at that age are practically penises with a life-support system attached) can deal with the innocence of a young girl with the "sugar daddy" inside him.

(And again, make no mistake, I suffer from no obsession with teen flesh. I naturally gravitate to grown up women - for the simple fact that teens are... well, insufferable.)

That is because contrary to the modern (again, Victorian?) notion of dominance - according to which beating your chest, issuing orders, and getting things your way is a sign of "alpha" status (in effect, being a 16-year old in the shape of an adult) - really mature men know that to rule is to be responsible for the ruled, to cater to the needs of those who are dependent on you, those who are not senior enough to assess the intricacies of life as well as you can.

Power is not what suppresses - that's powerlessness. Nor is it what destroys - that's desperation. Power is what makes happen. That is why all healthy traditional cultures recognize the legitimacy of authority to speak on what matters - and reject the notion of egalitarianism, of everyone speaking "equally", or "mutually exploring", etc. Those who aren't senior (powerful) enough cannot wield the tools of nature or culture responsibly.

(Let me repeat myself: The tragedy of modern conservatism is that in our current amnesia, we consider Victorian modernism conservative.)

In all our life experiences, the traditional, socially stable way is to follow the path of juniority-seniority - to apprentice by the side of those who are more mature and experienced so that they can pass down a bit of their wisdom. "Exploring sexuality" is the new age window dressing for eliminating traditional societal bonds (as Nisbett would say) so that the State and its Health Organs become the ultimate consultants on filling in on our ignorance on how we should lead our lives.

A culture steeped in egalitarianism - and the modern PC nightmare we all are currently suffering from - is the inevitable outcome of a Benthamite "panopticon"-style, surveillance-system-based societal model - the final stage of Victorianism - which tries to pegionhole human bodies and define their inter-relationships according to not their organic social bonds but an abstract, made-in-the-laboratory (chimerical?) notions of "mental health".

I always give this example to make a point regarding legitimacy in sex: Imagine an adult man who kidnaps an adult woman using a gun, forces her to strip at gun-point, and then masturbates while watching her (i.e. doesn't even touch her). Is that rape? You bet your boots it is, because a "persona" (not a person), a will is violated.

So, take a deep breath and repeat this to yourself:

There's nothing inherently base, dishonorable, dirty, or mentally deviant in the consensual coupling of a 16-year-old with an adult.

You should relax and mull over this a bit, Liv. Fear doesn't help.