I don't know how many times recently I've read about women being charged with rape (and/or child abuse) because they had sexual relations with very willing teenage boys...

Almost never is it because the boys themselves complained to anyone...usually they tell someone else (bragged?) and through jealousy or "goodie two-shoes" up-tightness, the word some how gets back to school authorities, their mother, or some such "horrified" person.

I mean every teen-age boy I used to know when I was one of them, fantasized, lied about, and otherwise dreamed of getting laid...as often as he was conscious. Many of us even dreamed about it literally. Ever heard of the "wet dream"?

So the horrible "guilty" woman gets sent off to prison, loses her job, has to register forever more as a sexual offender, or worse. And the poor teen age boy(s) gets sent to mandatory "counseling". And what is he told there?

Is he counseled that sex is "bad" if the woman initiates it? Is it that she is morally evil just because she is older than he is? That pre-marital sex is immoral under any conditions? What?

The whole thing is ridiculous. No woman can FORCE a teenage boy to get a hard-on. She can enable it, but not if he is disinterested.

Some folks need to learn the biological facts of real life. Boys are interested in and at their sexual peaks in the teenage years and early 20s. Women reach their sexual peaks in their late 20s to mid-30s. There was a time when our laws recognized that, and the age of consent for marriage without parental agreement in many of our states was 12 years old!

So boys and women do what is perfectly natural and these days SHE gets arrested for it and the boy gets forcibly taught how bad it/she/both were.

Political (or religious??) bullshit has run amok yet again amongst us. "Protect the children"...Yeh, big time...and in this case, protect them from us perhaps?

Then there is the other side of the coin; sexual relations of an adult with an underage but very willing teenage girl. Should that be prosecuted?

It seems to me that the prohibitions are related to pregnancy. For the girl it means the child is given up for adoption, that she quit school, etc. to care for it or the responsibility is dumped on her parents. For the boy it can also mean quitting school if he actually takes responsibility for the act or he can and frequently does just abandon the girl and child.

Then there was the case of the teacher, in Oregon if I remember correctly, that had a child with one of her students and ended up marrying him. Just think, if the marriage lasts, when he is 50 she will be 70, when he is 60 she will be 80 or maybe dead.

In some countries, child marriages are still accepted but their social structure allows for that.

AC:

Everything you say is true. I'd have loved to have sex with my high school math teacher. I asked her out. She turned me down. I came back and asked her out after I graduated from college. She still turned me down. I think I blew that opportunity when I did it in front of Brother Francis, who was my HS principal, and still was her boss. Bad timing on my part.

Women's lib. If everything is equal, well? Everything's not equal. Never was, Never will be.

No young man was ever "damaged" by having sex with an attractive woman, even if she was his teacher.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
AC:

Everything you say is true. I'd have loved to have sex with my high school math teacher. I asked her out. She turned me down. I came back and asked her out after I graduated from college. She still turned me down. I think I blew that opportunity when I did it in front of Brother Francis, who was my HS principal, and still was her boss. Bad timing on my part.

Women's lib. If everything is equal, well? Everything's not equal. Never was, Never will be.

No young man was ever "damaged" by having sex with an attractive woman, even if she was his teacher.

So you tried to date a Nun???

No, it was a penguin.....

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
Then there is the other side of the coin; sexual relations of an adult with an underage but very willing teenage girl. Should that be prosecuted?

It seems to me that the prohibitions are related to pregnancy. For the girl it means the child is given up for adoption, that she quit school, etc. to care for it or the responsibility is dumped on her parents. For the boy it can also mean quitting school if he actually takes responsibility for the act or he can and frequently does just abandon the girl and child.

Then there was the case of the teacher, in Oregon if I remember correctly, that had a child with one of her students and ended up marrying him. Just think, if the marriage lasts, when he is 50 she will be 70, when he is 60 she will be 80 or maybe dead.

In some countries, child marriages are still accepted but their social structure allows for that.

To some extent you are right. But the big difference as I see it is that girls CAN be forcibly raped and if the man claims it was consensual, rape of any female can be damned difficult to prove. The opposite is simply impossible. No female can forcibly rape an unwilling male.

So, let's leave pregnancy out of it for the moment...how about all the older females who have been charged with rape and/or sexual child abuse because they gave teenage boys BJs?

And going back to history a bit again....it was very common (and considered normal) for girls to get married at 12-to-14 years of age 60 years ago, and have children at those ages too.

I personally know several couples who had a child or two before they were 16. Of course their marriages have only lasted 55-65 years, so maybe they WILL break up. One of them is the daughter of a man who at the time was the Mexican consulate to the U.S. at San Jose, California. She was my first date of my life, and at the end of the evening invited me down into the dry creekbed behind her house at about 2 a.m. I turned her down because having not yet been told how the birds and the bees thing actually was performed (we were both 12 years old), I was too embarrassed to try it. A year or so later I spent a lot of time kicking myself around the block for having turned her down. But, by that time she was married to her husband Frank and had a son.

They did what everyone had to do in those days...because they loved each other they made it work for them and their children (they eventually had 5). It wasn't easy, but not much in life was easy in those days without welfare and a ton of other government programs attempting to socially engineer society despite biology.

My wife is 8 years older than me,,,, I wonder if I could get that charge to stick?
Damn, when I was a teenager, just about any person of the female persuasion would have been fair game. 18 to 89, crippled, blind, crazy, if they couldn't walk, I would have dragged 'em.....but, alas, they didn't want anything to do with me. Ugly goes a long way to the bone.
No, it isn't fair but some things in society have to have definition. May not be fair but...........

Times and generations certainly have changed in the U.S. since I was a lad.

In those days it was pretty commonly the instance where a father would take his pubescent son to a whore house. The reason? So the sprout could be taught the facts (ins and outs?) of life in bed by an older, more experienced woman than he'd otherwise have his first full sexual encounter with. And it would be strictly a business affair (bad puns), not some possibly emotionally or legally disastrous sort of relationship.

Cat houses likely weren't any more common per capita then than they are now. They WERE less securely hidden and didn't have to pay law enforcement on the pad as often or as much as now...

And society didn't collapse anything like to the degree it may have now under our new enlightened laws.

(Canada, thank God, has stayed more reasonable. In most of Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal. What is NOT legal is "persistent solicitation". It is okay if your local neighborhood street walker asks every man passing by "Hey big guy, wanta have a good time?" or some such proposition. But if he says "No" in any form and she makes a pest out of herself trying to talk him into it, now THAT is a crime (summary offense) equivalent to a U.S. misdemeanor.

Being a pimp in Canada is also illegal because it is not his/her bodily services which are being sold, but those of someone else who may be participating under duress. Pimps commit indictable offenses, the Canadian equivalent of a U.S. felony.)

you would all have differing degrees of opinion if you had married a nun like me.



She don't want none and she don't want me to have none. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

OlBiker:

I didn't hit on a nun. She was a lay teacher. I did have a serious crush on a Sister in grade school but I was too shy to bring up the topic and not sure I even knew what the topic was at that point.

Well as mentioned, this is one of the results of "equal rights" legislation. If a 30 something year old guy gets caught shacking up with a 16 year old girl the mob wants to throw away the key, but when the genders are reversed (especially if the female is attractive) most of the crowd acts confused as to why she is being persecuted. Equal rights is supposed to work both ways, so when situations like this happen perhaps what needs to be questioned are all the mandatory sentencing laws in effect.

BTW, in my youth when a 16 year old received "attention" from an older woman they weren't called "victims", we called them "lucky bastards".

The nonsense stems from the law defining rape as a function of age.

In my country, and many others in Europe, there is a legal Age of Consent (16 in this case), above which adolescents are deemed responsible enough to make a willing choice in accepting or refusing sex.

But sex with an underage partner is not equated with rape, which is forcible sex with an unwilling person, whatever the age of the victim.

And the judges do make a difference between having sex with a sexually mature and experienced "barely unlegal", or pre-pubescent kids or full pedofilia.

A female teacher having sex with a willing student would be prosecuted because of her position, but certainly not for rape.

Think of it, in the US by age 16 you're old enough to drive two tons of steel down the road, and responsible enough to do so without killing people, but you can't tell what you want or do not want to do with the content of your panties? Illogical prudery, to say the least...

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
Think of it, in the US by age 16 you're old enough to drive two tons of steel down the road, and responsible enough to do so without killing people, but you can't tell what you want or do not want to do with the content of your panties? Illogical prudery, to say the least...

I agree somewhat with illogical prudery thing. That said, the only reason the 16 year old is driving two tons of steel is probably because his parents are paying for it and the insurance thereof. So, I would say that if the theoretical minor and the sexual partner were financially independent, then there should be no issue.

Also, in the U.S.A., sexual intercourse of one who has attained majority with one who is still a minor is legal if they are married. In some states, marriage at age 15 or 16 (maybe lower in places) is legal with parental consent.

There are laws even more illogical. In Pennsylvania, any child born to a married woman is considered also her husbands legal offspring even if the child so born was the result of marital infidelity. That means the man, in the case of a divorce, would be responsible for child support.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
Think of it, in the US by age 16 you're old enough to drive two tons of steel down the road, and responsible enough to do so without killing people, but you can't tell what you want or do not want to do with the content of your panties? Illogical prudery, to say the least...

I agree somewhat with illogical prudery thing. That said, the only reason the 16 year old is driving two tons of steel is probably because his parents are paying for it and the insurance thereof. So, I would say that if the theoretical minor and the sexual partner were financially independent, then there should be no issue.

Also, in the U.S.A., sexual intercourse of one who has attained majority with one who is still a minor is legal if they are married. In some states, marriage at age 15 or 16 (maybe lower in places) is legal with parental consent.

There are laws even more illogical. In Pennsylvania, any child born to a married woman is considered also her husbands legal offspring even if the child so born was the result of marital infidelity. That means the man, in the case of a divorce, would be responsible for child support.

One at a time. The reason many of us drove cars when we were 16 (or even 14 in some states) is because we worked hard and saved our tiny earnings during the two or three summers previous to that age, and during the evenings and on the weekends during the school year. Then we bought our own car, insurance, fuel and repairs.
-------------

2. Pennsylvania is not the only state which requires that BOTH parties to the marriage support any and all offspring born to the female during the marriage.

In fact it is so common that I know of nowhere in either the United States or Canada where the law doesn't require that. It doesn't matter if the kid(s) are the result of marital, extramarital, or even immaculate, conception. And it applies to stepchildren too IF the couple is legally married, even by common law if they have lived as if a man and wife long enough (and represented themselves to others as a family) as to have attained that status.

It is the primary reason why extramarital sexual conduct has so long been a cultural no-no in most western societies. It was (is) to keep the financial status of the family under control by not producing children which are not the blood and effort of both of the marital partners.

It is also why I favor civil unions (contracts) instead of marriage for gay couples who feel a lifetime commitment to each other. In my opinion current marriage law does not spell out clearly enough what happens to children living as part of that homosexual relationship, if & when it ends. Until we have enough law and experience to regulate the possibilities such as now exists for heterosexual couples who marry, I think it should be spelled out in a very thorough and very specific contract.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
One at a time. The reason many of us drove cars when we were 16 (or even 14 in some states) is because we worked hard and saved our tiny earnings during the two or three summers previous to that age, and during the evenings and on the weekends during the school year. Then we bought our own car, insurance, fuel and repairs.

Pennsylvania is not the only state which requires that BOTH parties to the marriage support any and all offspring born to the female during the marriage.

In fact it is so common that I know of nowhere in either the United States or Canada where the law doesn't require that. It doesn't matter if the kid(s) are the result of marital, extramarital, or even immaculate, conception. And it applies to stepchildren too IF the couple is legally married, even by common law f they have lived as man and wife long enough and represented themselves to others as a family as to have attained that status.

It is the primary reason why extramarital sexual conduct has so long been a cultural no-no in most western societies. It was (is) to keep the financial status of the family under control by not producing children which are not the blood and effort of both of the marital partners.

It is also why I favor civil unions (contracts) instead of marriage for gay couples who feel a lifetime commitment to each other. In my opinion current marriage law does not spell out clearly enough what happens to children living as part of that homosexual relationship, if & when it ends. Until we have enough law and experience to regulate the possibilities such as exists for heterosexual couples who marry, I think it should be spelled out in a very thorough and very specific contract.

You mention "meager" earnings and kids buying their own insurance etc. That is from an age when I believe kids were a lot more responsible. These days, I doubt the majority of kids around where I live buy their own car or their own insurance. Working hard for 2 or 3 summers doesn't constitute the ability to provide for a family. When these young girls get pregant, the responsibility for their support usually falls on their family and/or public assistance.

Really, I don't feel like contributing to the support of the offspring of kids that can't keep their penis in their pants and can't adequately support a family.

I appreciate you elaborating on the nuances of the law regarding civil unions, etc. I wasn't aware the responsibilites of the male in cases of marriage infidelity were so widespread.

Of course, this strays a bit from your original disagreement with the current status of law in which willing mature females are punished severely for sexual intercourse with willing and subsequently very happy underage males. I agree with you on that. This, of course, would be provided that she either took appropriate precautions to avoid pregancy or was willing to completely support any resulting offspring.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
One at a time. The reason many of us drove cars when we were 16 (or even 14 in some states) is because we worked hard and saved our tiny earnings during the two or three summers previous to that age, and during the evenings and on the weekends during the school year. Then we bought our own car, insurance, fuel and repairs.

Pennsylvania is not the only state which requires that BOTH parties to the marriage support any and all offspring born to the female during the marriage.

In fact it is so common that I know of nowhere in either the United States or Canada where the law doesn't require that. It doesn't matter if the kid(s) are the result of marital, extramarital, or even immaculate, conception. And it applies to stepchildren too IF the couple is legally married, even by common law f they have lived as man and wife long enough and represented themselves to others as a family as to have attained that status.

It is the primary reason why extramarital sexual conduct has so long been a cultural no-no in most western societies. It was (is) to keep the financial status of the family under control by not producing children which are not the blood and effort of both of the marital partners.

It is also why I favor civil unions (contracts) instead of marriage for gay couples who feel a lifetime commitment to each other. In my opinion current marriage law does not spell out clearly enough what happens to children living as part of that homosexual relationship, if & when it ends. Until we have enough law and experience to regulate the possibilities such as exists for heterosexual couples who marry, I think it should be spelled out in a very thorough and very specific contract.

You mention "meager" earnings and kids buying their own insurance etc. That is from an age when I believe kids were a lot more responsible. These days, I doubt the majority of kids around where I live buy their own car or their own insurance. Working hard for 2 or 3 summers doesn't constitute the ability to provide for a family. When these young girls get pregant, the responsibility for their support usually falls on their family and/or public assistance.

Really, I don't feel like contributing to the support of the offspring of kids that can't keep their penis in their pants and can't adequately support a family.

I appreciate you elaborating on the nuances of the law regarding civil unions, etc. I wasn't aware the responsibilites of the male in cases of marriage infidelity were so widespread.

Of course, this strays a bit from your original disagreement with the current status of law in which willing mature females are punished severely for sexual intercourse with willing and subsequently very happy underage males. I agree with you on that. This, of course, would be provided that she either took appropriate precautions to avoid pregancy or was willing to completely support any resulting offspring.

As with you, no one likes contributing to the support of bastard children. And I don't like paying school taxes as I haven't had any kids in the public schools for over 35 years. If the schools were genuinely teaching useful things, rather than primarily propagandizing the kids as to how a perfect society "should" work and how our country (no matter which one)is "the best in the world" because of our liberal or conservative laws, it would be much more palatable to me. But that's not the case.

And I think we should quit blaming kids for their lack of a work ethic (if that's even true, which I suspect it isn't). When their society teaches them they should get everything they want with no effort, and their parents indulge that kind of bullshit, it is inevitable they will believe it.

Anyway,

I know lots of kids who still work their butts off to get their own car, and other "wants" or necessities. There are still lots of kids working as bag-boys and similar jobs in retail businesses, running their own on-line businesses, even just driving tractors or mowing lawns or providing their own unlicensed (and often untaxed) "landscaping" or "pool maintenance" services.

"Age" stereotyping can give kids (and appear in much of America to have done so) an unjustified "bad rap".

At the same time, despite the American myth, it is not necessary or even desirable for everyone to have a high school diploma, or a college degree. Have you looked recently at how much plumbers or appliance repair people or honest auto mechanics earn?

Kids who are required to support their own kid or two can do so if they know they HAVE to.

Sure, they may never become a lawyer or some such, but we already have too many lawyers, overpaid paper-pushers, and academic social theoreticians. And just look at what it has done to us.

A.C.
You "ALWAYS" hit the nail square on the head!
Best to you my friend.

I'm thinking of suing my private school. They did not provide a proper education. No hot teachers -- well, none that were willing anyway. How's a boy supposed to get properly educated?

I'm a lawyer, but I can't even say that with a straight face. I can't imagine complaining if it had happened though.

Statute of limitations probably ran long, long ago anyway.

Well, the cuckoos are still enforcing these ridiculous rape laws. In yesterday's on line news there was an announcement that a former NFL cheerleader (now apparently in her early 30s) has just been charged with rape for having consensual sex with a 15 year old boy.

My friend got convicted of Statutory rape when he was 17 and the girl was 16.The sex was consensual but her dad was a lawyer and wanted him punished.

quote:

Originally posted by jfromswk:
you would all have differing degrees of opinion if you had married a nun like me.



She don't want none and she don't want me to have none. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I think I married her sister.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
My friend got convicted of Statutory rape when he was 17 and the girl was 16.The sex was consensual but her dad was a lawyer and wanted him punished.

A friends son was in a similar situation. Tried as an adult and sexual predator designation. A few year of hard time and no jobs led to his suicide. Fucked up a mans life.

We've only had the concept of "teenager" since the 1920s. Before that there were only children and adults, the end of puberty being the normal delineator between the two. Once we got teenagers we quit telling children how the world worked until the onset of puberty, too late in my opinion to ingrain common sense before hormones took hold. Now it's so bad we have arrested development 30 year olds with 14 year old minds who can't relate to anyone their own age.