Black man definitely ugly enough for prison

[Truth_and_Power]

Florida teacher gets 22 years for sex with a student (http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/12/Pasco/Pasco_band_teacher_ge.shtml)

Don't bother getting a lawyer, just get some plastic surgery if you can. This is the most blatant double standard imaginable.

[Go Fish]

I don't get it. The guy didn't even think he deserved 15 years. Clearly the judge saw that he didn't consider having sex with children as a bad thing.

[penmyst]

Which double standard are we talking about?

The one where if you are pretty/handsome, what you did isn't so bad - but if you are ugly/average, throw the book at you?

Or the one where if you are a woman teacher banging a male student, it's not that big a deal and in fact joke fodder - but if you are a male teacher boinking a female student you are a vicious predator exploiting a child?

Cuz they both stink to high heaven. But I can't say it surprises me in today's fool-ridden, vain society.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yea, that is why the female teachers were sent to jail... because it is no big deal.

[lily]

I must be missing something. I read the article and I can't figure out how it fits the title?

[apdst]

Yeah, it's all about race and gender. Damn if it has anything to do with breaking the law.

[Go Fish]

I re-read the story a few times. I'm guessing that he was sent to the can because of his last name. There is no mention of his ethnicity in the story.

[Drocket]

Yea, that is why the female teachers were sent to jail... because it is no big deal.

Not anything on the order of 22 years, though, something I just decided to double-check (Side-note: I definitely recommend that you DO NOT google 'female teacher having sex with students' while there are children in the house...) Ignoring a lot of cases with older boys (since I personally don't consider having sex with a 17 year old to be anywhere near as bad as with a 13 or 14 year old, and the sentences seem to agree with that), you have Debra Lafave (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/teacher.sex/index.html), who had sex with a 14 year old and got 3 years house arrest (no jail at all), Christel Gravlin (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961842), who got 6 months for sex with a 15 year old, Marian L. (http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/parker.shtml), who got 1 year for sex with 2 14 year olds, Beth Friedman (http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/friedman/011802_ctv.html), who got probation for sex with a 15 year old, and many, many more.

Here (http://crime.about.com/od/sex/ig/female_pedophiles/) is a rather LONG list of female teachers who molested their students, and glancing through them, I don't see any who got what I would consider a meaningful sentence. The longest I saw was 5 years.

There's a serious double-standard going on.

[apdst]

There is no mention of his ethnicity in the story.

I've been plexed about that, too. I guess maybe since white boys ain't got no rythm, the guy must be colored.

[Troubadour]

Or the one where if you are a woman teacher banging a male student, it's not that big a deal and in fact joke fodder - but if you are a male teacher boinking a female student you are a vicious predator exploiting a child?


While no one argues that the law should be different for the two scenarios, isn't it a little silly to pretend they aren't morally different? Sex is not emotional for males, while for females it's strongly related to trust and security - hence the term "taken advantage of." Grown men who have sex with young adolescent girls are exploiting and betraying their vulnerability, but it's actually more like the reverse when women have sex with boys - they're using the kids' sexual drive to satisfy their emotional needs. It's still exploitive, but I'll never buy into the notion that "victimization" is occurring in those cases: I remember being that age far too clearly to believe that. The law needs to be fair, and the women teachers knew what they were risking when they did it, so locking them up is perfectly acceptable - but the notion that they're predators is laughable. Be honest - we feign outrage at those cases to avoid getting our heads bitten off by the womenfolk.

[preservanation]

It does seem like a double standard.
The outcome in this case points to a Hillary victory over Obama when the law suits start to fly.

[Elrathin]

Pres, what the hell does Hillary or Obama have to do with this thread and why do you feel the need to interject a completely off topic remark? As a mod you really need to do better.

The problem I have is I still think that woman teachers that sleep with male students get far less jail time than male teachers that sleep with female students. That is the double standard that I am seeing.

[Truth_and_Power]

I must be missing something. I read the article and I can't figure out how it fits the title?


There was a woman in florida who had sex with a male student, and she was a "hot blonde". Her lawyer's argument was that she was "too pretty for prison". She got house arrest.[hr]
Sex is not emotional for males, while for females it's strongly related to trust and security ... Be honest - we feign outrage at those cases to avoid getting our heads bitten off by the womenfolk.


Yeah I hear a lot of women upset when other women don't get long enough prison sentances.

[4Reaganomics]

Or the one where if you are a woman teacher banging a male student, it's not that big a deal and in fact joke fodder - but if you are a male teacher boinking a female student you are a vicious predator exploiting a child?


While no one argues that the law should be different for the two scenarios, isn't it a little silly to pretend they aren't morally different? Sex is not emotional for males, while for females it's strongly related to trust and security - hence the term "taken advantage of." Grown men who have sex with young adolescent girls are exploiting and betraying their vulnerability, but it's actually more like the reverse when women have sex with boys - they're using the kids' sexual drive to satisfy their emotional needs. It's still exploitive, but I'll never buy into the notion that "victimization" is occurring in those cases: I remember being that age far too clearly to believe that. The law needs to be fair, and the women teachers knew what they were risking when they did it, so locking them up is perfectly acceptable - but the notion that they're predators is laughable. Be honest - we feign outrage at those cases to avoid getting our heads bitten off by the womenfolk.


Big time generalization from a member who identifies with a group that constantly complains about generalizations

[nevadamedic]

Florida teacher gets 22 years for sex with a student (http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/12/Pasco/Pasco_band_teacher_ge.shtml)

Don't bother getting a lawyer, just get some plastic surgery if you can. This is the most blatant double standard imaginable.


There's no picture of the dude on there. At first when I read the thread title I thought it was about Obama. :lmao:[hr]
It does seem like a double standard.
The outcome in this case points to a Hillary victory over Obama when the law suits start to fly.


:clapper:

[AlanC]

There is no picture and even if there was, it would be irrelevant.

The title of the thread is apparently completely misleading.

The disparity in sentences comes from some chauvenistic misconception that the boys proably like it and the girls were victims. Thus only the male is a sexual predator and the females who do this are somehow victims themselves.

I guess it would boil down to the likelyhood that the individual will repeat the behavior.

I've not seen any thing that would justify such a disparity in sentencing.

[Troubadour]

Yeah I hear a lot of women upset when other women don't get long enough prison sentances.


It's true: The main source of outrage over women teachers having sex with students is from women. Men think it's hilarious, if not envy the "victim."[hr]
Big time generalization from a member who identifies with a group that constantly complains about generalizations


Again, liberal is a value system - not a set of specific behaviors or beliefs. All human interaction unavoidably involves generalization, and that's perfectly acceptable as long as you take into account individual differences in individual cases - you don't have to deny the validity of a pattern in order to avoid victimizing the exceptions. That's why the laws on this are the same for men and women - because it's possible for a woman to be predatory, and for a teenage boy to be emotionally harmed by a sexual relationship with her: It just isn't very likely. Women were never teenage boys, so it's understandable if their reactions to stories like that have more to do with their own experiences, but I simply don't believe it if another man tells me he's outraged or disgusted by women teachers having sex with students. Either they're just saying what they think they're supposed to say, or they don't remember being a teenager. If anyone found memories of hot teacher sex burdensome, I would gladly exchange them for my years of awkward fumbling.

[penmyst]

While no one argues that the law should be different for the two scenarios, isn't it a little silly to pretend they aren't morally different? Sex is not emotional for males, while for females it's strongly related to trust and security - hence the term "taken advantage of." Grown men who have sex with young adolescent girls are exploiting and betraying their vulnerability, but it's actually more like the reverse when women have sex with boys - they're using the kids' sexual drive to satisfy their emotional needs. It's still exploitive, but I'll never buy into the notion that "victimization" is occurring in those cases: I remember being that age far too clearly to believe that. The law needs to be fair, and the women teachers knew what they were risking when they did it, so locking them up is perfectly acceptable - but the notion that they're predators is laughable. Be honest - we feign outrage at those cases to avoid getting our heads bitten off by the womenfolk.


Here is the thing: whether you want to talk about who is the more aggressive of the sexes or which is more likely to treat it more or less emotionally--- that isn't the crux of the issue.

Sexual relations belong between two ADULTS who are able to consider the ramifications of the interaction, and then make a judgement for themselves as to whether it's what they want to do.

When you have 1 ADULT engaging in a sexual relationship with a CHILD, that is not a balanced and consenting relationship where both parties are of mature enough faculty to make that decision in a free and informed manner. It is quite unbalanced.

Think about how dumb YOU were when you were 13. I know I was stupid as all get out. I sure as heck shouldn't have been left to make my own decisions regarding anything of real import. It's why kids can't vote, can't drink, can't drive, can't do just about anything. If it was up to me at that age, I would have left school and been playing with videogames and potheads for the rest of my life.

[Troubadour]

Sexual relations belong between two ADULTS who are able to consider the ramifications of the interaction, and then make a judgement for themselves as to whether it's what they want to do.


Yes, of course that's the case. I merely say that the double standard between male and female sex offenders is perfectly reasonable - it's unlikely they're committing the same offense on a moral level. I.e., it's improbable that the same level of harm is occurring.


Think about how dumb YOU were when you were 13.


Exactly. If 13-year-old me had had sex with a teacher, I would have strutted around the school like a god, and wallowed in the envy of other boys until an adult overheard my bragging or some jealous antagonist turned informer. In fact, I'm a little peeved this phenomenon started happening only a few years after I left high school - who knows, I might have had a shot. :dork:


If it was up to me at that age, I would have left school and been playing with videogames and potheads for the rest of my life.


And would you, today, feel like a victim if at age 13 you'd had sex with this woman:

http://www.bluelineradio.com/debra_lafave.jpg

About the only harm I can imagine would be exaggerated expectations.

[Truth_and_Power]

because it's possible for a woman to be predatory, and for a teenage boy to be emotionally harmed by a sexual relationship with her: It just isn't very likely.

..based on your extensive experience with having sex with an adult when you were 13, and the assumption that everyone else is wired just like you, but only if they're male.

[Keith Hamburger]

While no one argues that the law should be different for the two scenarios, isn't it a little silly to pretend they aren't morally different? Sex is not emotional for males, while for females it's strongly related to trust and security - hence the term "taken advantage of." Grown men who have sex with young adolescent girls are exploiting and betraying their vulnerability, but it's actually more like the reverse when women have sex with boys - they're using the kids' sexual drive to satisfy their emotional needs. It's still exploitive, but I'll never buy into the notion that "victimization" is occurring in those cases: I remember being that age far too clearly to believe that. The law needs to be fair, and the women teachers knew what they were risking when they did it, so locking them up is perfectly acceptable - but the notion that they're predators is laughable. Be honest - we feign outrage at those cases to avoid getting our heads bitten off by the womenfolk.


There's a fairly good chance you have much of this backwards. While I agree that sex is usually more of an emotional situation with females, and there are many hormonal reasons for that, there is also a question of maturity here.

It is fairly well accepted that girls mature physically, emotionally and mentally earlier than boys. Given that, it makes little sense to consider having sex with a boy of a given age as being a lesser issue than having sex with a girl of the same age. The girl is more likely to be able to handle the situation as an adult than the boy is.

Keith

[Troubadour]

It is fairly well accepted that girls mature physically, emotionally and mentally earlier than boys.


That would mean something if they were both maturing into the same thing, but boys mature into men and girls into women. Even the process itself doesn't involve the same types of incompleteness - males get their sexual drive far earlier and more intensely than their need for emotional, romantic relationships, so being "immature" means they're motivated largely by a desire for sex. Females, however, develop a strong instinct for relationships well before their sexual desires peak, so being an immature female means they're not as interested in sex.

This symmetrical dichotomy is not a coincidence - it evolved this way because there's a balance of biological imperatives: Males who learn more quickly how to satisfy female emotional needs, which relate to survival of offspring, will tend to procreate earlier and more often, so it's adaptive under most conditions in human history. Anyway, the point being that sex is the immediate, urgent instinct of adolescent males, but for adolescent females it's almost entirely emotional - so in the male case, the worst an older woman is likely to do is delay an important learning process. Not good, but not on the order of actually causing a person emotional trauma and social stigma.

[Truth_and_Power]

It is fairly well accepted that girls mature physically, emotionally and mentally earlier than boys.


That would mean something if they were both maturing into the same thing, but boys mature into men and girls into women. Even the process itself doesn't involve the same types of incompleteness - males get their sexual drive far earlier and more intensely than their need for emotional, romantic relationships, so being "immature" means they're motivated largely by a desire for sex. Females, however, develop a strong instinct for relationships well before their sexual desires peak, so being an immature female means they're not as interested in sex.

This symmetrical dichotomy is not a coincidence - it evolved this way because there's a balance of biological imperatives: Males who learn more quickly how to satisfy female emotional needs, which relate to survival of offspring, will tend to procreate earlier and more often, so it's adaptive under most conditions in human history. Anyway, the point being that sex is the immediate, urgent instinct of adolescent males, but for adolescent females it's almost entirely emotional - so in the male case, the worst an older woman is likely to do is delay an important learning process. Not good, but not on the order of actually causing a person emotional trauma and social stigma.


The emotional trauma part is pretty circumstantial, you're just speculating wildly based on your far far removed reflections on your youth and a little pop psychology. The social stereotypes and stigma part is dead on, and that is fueling both your perceptions and the perceptions of the community that will more severely traumatize the young girl.

Regardless of all of this, the law is the law and this is one of many examples where it is not followed. Don't shrug your shoulders at this and then act surprised or look for explanations when studies find that black defendants get longer sentences.

[Scribbler1]

I agree with Troubadour, at least from my own observations. We had a couple of teachers in school a LOT of us would like to have a chance with. If any of us DID get a chance, I'm quite sure none of us were so "sensitive" that we'd feel WE were "victimized".

[Troubadour]

The emotional trauma part is pretty circumstantial, you're just speculating wildly based on your far far removed reflections on your youth and a little pop psychology.


Even objectively, my youth wasn't that long ago (I'm 24). I'm not deludedly looking through the fog of ages at some distantly glimpsed primordial condition - I remember being a young teenager and experiencing my life at the time, it's not just a jumble of images and impressions. But even if all I have to go on are my own crystal-clear memories, who would offer their own in contrast? What man would say, "If a woman had had sex with me at an age when sex was all I ever thought about, I would have been devastated"? As for "pop psychology," you're off by a mile - what I'm saying is pretty far from PC, and isn't from some Dr. Phil book: I synthesize my own conclusions based on my own considerable knowledge. The fact that I'm not a mental health professional means only that I find something else more interesting, not that I'm ignorant.


The social stereotypes and stigma part is dead on, and that is fueling both your perceptions and the perceptions of the community that will more severely traumatize the young girl.


But that is a different question. We compare the relative, actual harm occurring in male vs. female cases, not the actual vs. socially invented harm in the specific case of females. Society overreacts in both cases due to the puritanical pedigree of our culture, but even so, the difference in overreaction is at least in part justified by real distinctions in the level of actual harm occurring.


Regardless of all of this, the law is the law and this is one of many examples where it is not followed. Don't shrug your shoulders at this and then act surprised or look for explanations when studies find that black defendants get longer sentences.


A third separate issue. Sentences for women offenders are not lower due to bias in favor of women or against men, as your racial example appears to imply - they are lower because both the perceived and real harm occurring in the crime is generally less, although perceived harm still vastly exceeds real harm. In cases with a male offender and female victim, three different social dogmas combine to exaggerate the magnitude of the crime: Unrealistically stark and idealized distinctions between adulthood and childhood, the ideal of "feminine innocence," and the general demonization of sexuality. In cases with a female offender and male "victim," only two of those dogmas apply, so the result is lower sentences due to differential exaggeration. The law is the same because fairness requires that the crime be assumed as the same until the specific facts can be weighed, but with few exceptions reality simply doesn't support the notion that the same extent of harm occurred.[hr]
I agree with Troubadour, at least from my own observations. We had a couple of teachers in school a LOT of us would like to have a chance with. If any of us DID get a chance, I'm quite sure none of us were so "sensitive" that we'd feel WE were "victimized".


Yes, exactly. The studied ignorance of male nature displayed by treating teachers like that as "sexual predators" is slightly nauseating. It's easy to forget in later years just how frustrating and horrible being a young teenage boy is - all you think about, all you want, all you dream about is sex, but in the vast majority of cases it's just not available until you're driving and looking at colleges. My memories are uncommonly clear, so I remember what it was like - if a teacher like Debra Lafave had "victimized" me, then and only then would I have believed there's a God. And I'm guessing my grades would have vastly improved. :thumbsup: