Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 16, 2008
News When You're On the PTA and the Police Find a "Half-Naked" Teenage Boy in Your SUV...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM
...you'll get in less trouble if the boy's top half is naked and not, you know, his bottom half.
Police arrested Joan Tuckruskye after allegedly finding her in the backseat of a parked car with a 13-year-old boy. Both of them, police said, were partially unclothed....It was in the rear of the elementary school parking lot where patrolling officers said they noticed the foggy and steamed windows of an SUV. They approached and knocked on the window.
"They observed a woman in her 40s and a boy who appeared to be a teenager. They were not clothed from the waist down," said Lt. Kevin Smith of the Nassau County Police Department. At first, police said, the boy said he was 18. Later at the hospital, though, he admitted being 13 but claimed he and the PTA mom were only kissing.
This poor boy is likely to be traumatized by this experience for the rest of his life—not just the sexual experience, or even primarily the sexual experience. He'll be most traumatized by the arrest, the questioning, the trial, having to testify against this woman, and her likely imprisonment.
4
This kid's life would have been awesome if she hadn't been caught.
Seriously, what teenage boy is going to think back and go "man, I wish I hadn't banged my cougar teacher back in middle school"?
Aside from the confused gay ones.
Seriously, what teenage boy is going to think back and go "man, I wish I hadn't banged my cougar teacher back in middle school"?
Aside from the confused gay ones.
5
My student counselor in High School let me blow him. As odd as it sounds, the conversation that led to the pants coming off was about my sister, who has admitted to me that she fucked him. Which, of course, made it weird. If he could get my sister so easily (which most people could, I must admit), why would he even begin to allow, for even a second, some twinky little faggot to blow him? Odd, I tell you. Odd.
6
Riiight...
They both have their pants down around their ankles, and he claims they were both only kissing.
Sure. Stick with that story. If she's pregnant you can just claim it's a virgin birth.
They both have their pants down around their ankles, and he claims they were both only kissing.
Sure. Stick with that story. If she's pregnant you can just claim it's a virgin birth.
7
What fucking law allows police to knock on steamed up SUV windows. The whole case should be thrown out on that alone. What's next, "the police saw steamed up windows on the bedroom window, so they checked it out to see if there was illegal sex going on in there."
8
suspicious activity in a public place - draws a crowd, including the local cops. seems pretty common to me. unbeknownst, one of them (or both) were aiming to get caught. or maybe beknownst.
9
Not just suspicious activity in a public place, but suspicious activity in the parking lot of an elementary school.
In that location, I'm willing to give police the leeway to check the car.
I'm just wondering if Dan's comments would raise a ruckus if the case involved a man in his 40s and a 13 year old girl.
In that location, I'm willing to give police the leeway to check the car.
I'm just wondering if Dan's comments would raise a ruckus if the case involved a man in his 40s and a 13 year old girl.
11
If the roles were different an older man and a 13 year old girl the response would not be oh that's too bad he got arrested and questioned. The boy was molested. Again the child was molested. I thought even Dan Savage would point that out. Once again he was molested.
12
When I was in 6th Grade, there appeared the love of my life, Ms. P, Science teacher.
After enduring grades K-5, taught by the Sisters of Mary & Joseph, most in what seemed like their 80s in floor length black and white habits, Ms. P, a 21 year old graduate of Queens College appeared in a body hugging peasant dress.
She had curly black hair, and a cutie pie face, and -- she was smart! -- every nerd's dream girl. She used to bribe us boys by giving a pinch on the cheek or a small kiss if we got the answers to her science questions -- which she taught at the college freshman level -- correct.
Now, those days of me hanging out at home, reading Time-Life books on optics, while others wasted their lives in games of touch football, suddenly paid off.
This is to say, that far from being "traumatized", being caught anywhere with Ms. P at that age, even with our clothes on and a class of 40 (crowded, yes, Baby Boom...remember) watching us, a pinch on the cheek was more than enough to skyrocket my hormones and give me a buzz for the next 24 hours until I could raise my hand...yet again...like a hamster on feed switch.
After enduring grades K-5, taught by the Sisters of Mary & Joseph, most in what seemed like their 80s in floor length black and white habits, Ms. P, a 21 year old graduate of Queens College appeared in a body hugging peasant dress.
She had curly black hair, and a cutie pie face, and -- she was smart! -- every nerd's dream girl. She used to bribe us boys by giving a pinch on the cheek or a small kiss if we got the answers to her science questions -- which she taught at the college freshman level -- correct.
Now, those days of me hanging out at home, reading Time-Life books on optics, while others wasted their lives in games of touch football, suddenly paid off.
This is to say, that far from being "traumatized", being caught anywhere with Ms. P at that age, even with our clothes on and a class of 40 (crowded, yes, Baby Boom...remember) watching us, a pinch on the cheek was more than enough to skyrocket my hormones and give me a buzz for the next 24 hours until I could raise my hand...yet again...like a hamster on feed switch.
13
Oh no Nancy Grace has another 3 year Mary Kay Letourneau feeding frenzy storyline.
Meanwhile In France.
Ooh La La, future fodder for some French movie about an innocent's right of passage love affair featuring a teenage boy and the older woman.
Only in America they call it rape.
Meanwhile In France.
Ooh La La, future fodder for some French movie about an innocent's right of passage love affair featuring a teenage boy and the older woman.
Only in America they call it rape.
14
I wonder what the kid says? Or is that naive of me? Maybe a 13-year old won't know what he thinks, wants, or is being done to him; and isn't that what was said about women, by their staunch Victorian defenders, until Feminism came along? How long are we going to listen to adults whose defense of kids relies on their never listening to them?
This steamy van in the parking lot caught my eye because that's how Mary Key LeTourneau (40ish) first got caught with Vili Faulau (12). No one asked him what he thought either, because he had to be saved. A lot of time, tears, and vast amounts of money were spent saving him and keeping her in jail. Now they're married and have three kids. Who would have known?
This post, like most of the Slog hand-wringing over kids and sex, is not about kids. It's about grown-ups and some broadly unresolved issues that oblige grown-ups to work out their own problems by defending "the children." Dan is not alone; he's the norm. God forbid that the kids themselves should ever cloud things up by speaking for themselves, or being trusted. They might turn out to be just as varied and strange and human as the rest of us.
This steamy van in the parking lot caught my eye because that's how Mary Key LeTourneau (40ish) first got caught with Vili Faulau (12). No one asked him what he thought either, because he had to be saved. A lot of time, tears, and vast amounts of money were spent saving him and keeping her in jail. Now they're married and have three kids. Who would have known?
This post, like most of the Slog hand-wringing over kids and sex, is not about kids. It's about grown-ups and some broadly unresolved issues that oblige grown-ups to work out their own problems by defending "the children." Dan is not alone; he's the norm. God forbid that the kids themselves should ever cloud things up by speaking for themselves, or being trusted. They might turn out to be just as varied and strange and human as the rest of us.
15
@11. Dan did point it out.
@13. We call it rape because it is rape. He's barely a "teen." She's practically old enough to be his goddamn grandmother.
He's not in anywhere near old enough to give consent to this woman.
@13. We call it rape because it is rape. He's barely a "teen." She's practically old enough to be his goddamn grandmother.
He's not in anywhere near old enough to give consent to this woman.
16
Whoops, apologies Dan. I read your "poor boy...will be traumatized" and missed that you're focused on the police and the arrest. Truly, that's got to be a weird one for any 13-year old. I hope he writes about it. That would mean a lot more to me than 1000 more posts of adult hand-wringing about kids.
17
@14: ... but there is no way to know if the boy is really speaking for himself or if his teacher is somehow coercing him into acting like everything's okay. I agree that children's rights in this country need to be improved BUT thirteen is still young enough that he could easily be manipulated, especially if this has been going on for a long time. like others have said, would you be arguing the same point if the teacher had been a man? I think the real question is why are we so ready to assume that this woman had the boy's best interest in mind. women are perfectly capable of being molesters too.
18
14, I'm not trying to defend children to avoid working out my own problems.
I think adults should know enough not to get sexually involved with children. Period.
I think adults should know enough not to get sexually involved with children. Period.
19
Matthew, I just don't agree. These laws have to be decided by grown-ups.
Perhaps some 13-yr-olds are mature enough to consent to fucking people as old as their parents, but I highly doubt that would be even close to a quarter of the demographic.
These kids don't know what they're consenting to. They don't know much about anything but the fact that everything seems to make them horny. The age of consent laws are for the majority of kids who aren't unusually mature or worldly (i.e., most of them). And they're to protect kids from dangerous adults who would try to pressure them into varsity shit they aren't ready for.
Scenario: 14-yr-old kid likes 40-yr-old adult. They agree to meet at a hotel room. The adult hugs and kisses the kid. Everything's cool. The kid feels safe and affection and "wow-this-is-amazing!!!" Then the adult says, "let's play a game!" The kid's like, "great! I'm cool!" The adult says, "I don't know if you're old enough; my games are pretty wild." The kid says, "I'm mature for my age; you know that." The next thing the kid knows he/she is tied to the bed posts. They fuck. Everything's great.
Then the adult whips the kid. Then the adult pees and shits on the kid. What are the odds the kid thought "games" meant this?
Most adults know what questions to ask. Most adults know what "games" might mean. Most adults know not to let someone tie them up on first dates. Most adults can detect signs that kids cannot, no matter how ready they are for sex. Yes, adults sometimes get into situations that are bad too, but we are in a much better position to see them coming--and defend ourselves--when it happens. The average 13-yr-old is just not intellectually able to "consent" to anything a manipulative, dangerous adult wants to do. Or to defend him/herself if things go wrong.
This is why we have age-of-consent laws. This boy might be fine, even though he began sexual relations very, very young. But, most boys are not fine when they start having sex this early. Most girls especially are not fine. Our laws are for the rules, not the exceptions.
All of this being said, I think that age-of-consent laws should be the same for everyone: gay or straight.
More...
Perhaps some 13-yr-olds are mature enough to consent to fucking people as old as their parents, but I highly doubt that would be even close to a quarter of the demographic.
These kids don't know what they're consenting to. They don't know much about anything but the fact that everything seems to make them horny. The age of consent laws are for the majority of kids who aren't unusually mature or worldly (i.e., most of them). And they're to protect kids from dangerous adults who would try to pressure them into varsity shit they aren't ready for.
Scenario: 14-yr-old kid likes 40-yr-old adult. They agree to meet at a hotel room. The adult hugs and kisses the kid. Everything's cool. The kid feels safe and affection and "wow-this-is-amazing!!!" Then the adult says, "let's play a game!" The kid's like, "great! I'm cool!" The adult says, "I don't know if you're old enough; my games are pretty wild." The kid says, "I'm mature for my age; you know that." The next thing the kid knows he/she is tied to the bed posts. They fuck. Everything's great.
Then the adult whips the kid. Then the adult pees and shits on the kid. What are the odds the kid thought "games" meant this?
Most adults know what questions to ask. Most adults know what "games" might mean. Most adults know not to let someone tie them up on first dates. Most adults can detect signs that kids cannot, no matter how ready they are for sex. Yes, adults sometimes get into situations that are bad too, but we are in a much better position to see them coming--and defend ourselves--when it happens. The average 13-yr-old is just not intellectually able to "consent" to anything a manipulative, dangerous adult wants to do. Or to defend him/herself if things go wrong.
This is why we have age-of-consent laws. This boy might be fine, even though he began sexual relations very, very young. But, most boys are not fine when they start having sex this early. Most girls especially are not fine. Our laws are for the rules, not the exceptions.
All of this being said, I think that age-of-consent laws should be the same for everyone: gay or straight.
20
Heterosexual PTA moms should all be imprisoned before they have a chance to molest and confuse gay 13 year old boys. This kid is obviously gay and they police were just doing an intervention. Only stylish witty gay men should be allowed to be officers in elementary school PTAs. Hopefully this kid was interrogated by a sensitive handsome gay detective who could help him find his way.
21
I'll also add that I suspect that Dan's right; the way this gets handled here on out may well traumatize the boy more than anything else.
Too many people close to him will know that he's the kid in this story. Would you really want everybody in town knowing about your 13 year old sexual experiences? And then there is all the attention coming in from outside. Hell is having Nancy Grace talk about you.
This is not a one-time trauma. Over the next year or so, the boy will have a front-row seat to watching the woman's family deal with the repercussions. I'm tempted to think that the best possible course of action would be for his parents to move far away.
Too many people close to him will know that he's the kid in this story. Would you really want everybody in town knowing about your 13 year old sexual experiences? And then there is all the attention coming in from outside. Hell is having Nancy Grace talk about you.
This is not a one-time trauma. Over the next year or so, the boy will have a front-row seat to watching the woman's family deal with the repercussions. I'm tempted to think that the best possible course of action would be for his parents to move far away.
22
Kids will experiment with sex... WITH OTHER KIDS! I'd be bemused and embarrassed for everyone involved if cops dragged two 13 years out from their parents' car during a PTA meeting with their pants off, but a 40 year old adult participating in sexual behavior with a underage CHILD, no matter what the gender of either is both sickening and saddening.
The fact that once again people roll their eyes and say "oh boys love it" is horrible. It's a double standard that, just like every other double standard, does a disservice to everyone, those it's as applied to, those who listen and learn this double standard, and those who perpetuate it.
People who study human development agree that something really important happens between the ages of 12 and 16 (up too 25, but I'll focus age of consent) and it's all about decision making skills, which is why even though a 13 may be physically sexually mature, they are not mentally sexually mature. Hence the laws about statutory rape. It's not some puritanical no fun mandate keeping teenage boys and girls from "experimenting" with more experienced adults, it's because a 13 faced with the offer of sex, not even the pressure to have sex, just the offer will, more often than not, not make the same decision if they had their adult selve's decision-making skill.
I'm sorry, IT IS IN FACT RAPE. Whether or not that kid's going to have problems his whole life remains to be seen.
The fact that once again people roll their eyes and say "oh boys love it" is horrible. It's a double standard that, just like every other double standard, does a disservice to everyone, those it's as applied to, those who listen and learn this double standard, and those who perpetuate it.
People who study human development agree that something really important happens between the ages of 12 and 16 (up too 25, but I'll focus age of consent) and it's all about decision making skills, which is why even though a 13 may be physically sexually mature, they are not mentally sexually mature. Hence the laws about statutory rape. It's not some puritanical no fun mandate keeping teenage boys and girls from "experimenting" with more experienced adults, it's because a 13 faced with the offer of sex, not even the pressure to have sex, just the offer will, more often than not, not make the same decision if they had their adult selve's decision-making skill.
I'm sorry, IT IS IN FACT RAPE. Whether or not that kid's going to have problems his whole life remains to be seen.
23
Dude, he's 13! Would you feel this way if the genders were reversed? Sure, the trial may be traumatizing, but...hey, so would it be for an adult rape victim...that doesn't mean a sexual predator shouldn't be brought to justice.
24
@17-23, and beyond, I still wonder what the kid says. That was my point. If it was a girl I would also wonder what she says. I'm interested in their experience, and I don't know what it is. Maybe I've just missed the studies. Any social science types out there who can point me to studies of kids' own accounts, or longer-term stuff, such as what they made of it when they grew up?
My point is that we don't know and most people don't actually want to know. They're too busy having their deep feelings about victimized kids. We care so deeply about victimized kids, that no kid can be trusted to say what he or she thinks -- unless it agrees with the prevailing scenario of their victimization. The kid's experience is beside the point.
That doesn't mean I think this was healthy or right, or that these are good relationships. It means I'm curious what the kid says, and I've noticed that no one will ask or give any credence to the answer. This isn't about the kid, or his or her experience; it is about the grown-ups and their deep feelings, their outrage, about victims.
This is nothing new. There have always been special, treasured beings, whose virtues needed defending (women, for example). Now it's kids. For some people it's animals. I'm saying this is not about the kids, just like it was never about the women. If it was we might actually ask what they think and give credence to the answers. But instead, we know without asking -- with deep conviction and certainty we know the tragedy of their victimization, and we don't let their account of things get in the way of our feelings. I don't think that does much to help kids.
(btw, do any of you really believe that being older has helped you make smart, healthy decisions about sex and/or love? And is that the yardstick? Since some people don't ever learn to be healthy or wise about sex, should those who are stupid enough to have destructive relationships be stripped of their legal right to try? And, if worldliness is the measuring rod, should we let naive, inexperienced adults have sex with kids?)
More...
My point is that we don't know and most people don't actually want to know. They're too busy having their deep feelings about victimized kids. We care so deeply about victimized kids, that no kid can be trusted to say what he or she thinks -- unless it agrees with the prevailing scenario of their victimization. The kid's experience is beside the point.
That doesn't mean I think this was healthy or right, or that these are good relationships. It means I'm curious what the kid says, and I've noticed that no one will ask or give any credence to the answer. This isn't about the kid, or his or her experience; it is about the grown-ups and their deep feelings, their outrage, about victims.
This is nothing new. There have always been special, treasured beings, whose virtues needed defending (women, for example). Now it's kids. For some people it's animals. I'm saying this is not about the kids, just like it was never about the women. If it was we might actually ask what they think and give credence to the answers. But instead, we know without asking -- with deep conviction and certainty we know the tragedy of their victimization, and we don't let their account of things get in the way of our feelings. I don't think that does much to help kids.
(btw, do any of you really believe that being older has helped you make smart, healthy decisions about sex and/or love? And is that the yardstick? Since some people don't ever learn to be healthy or wise about sex, should those who are stupid enough to have destructive relationships be stripped of their legal right to try? And, if worldliness is the measuring rod, should we let naive, inexperienced adults have sex with kids?)
25
If a thirteen year old can be tried as an adult because he's "old enough to know right from wrong" why can't a thirteen year old decide who he wants sex with? Just wondering. I think we always want things both ways.
26
*yawn*
old enough to want to do it? old enough to do it.
if the kid had gone to the police and said he was in a horrible, uncomfortable, abusive relationship then they should have done everything in their power to help. as is, i just can't see the harm.
and yes, before you ask, i'd have the same answer if it were a 40 year old man and a 13 year old girl. young women are just as able to give consent as young men.
old enough to want to do it? old enough to do it.
if the kid had gone to the police and said he was in a horrible, uncomfortable, abusive relationship then they should have done everything in their power to help. as is, i just can't see the harm.
and yes, before you ask, i'd have the same answer if it were a 40 year old man and a 13 year old girl. young women are just as able to give consent as young men.
27
Matthew, you're asking good and important questions. I too would be interested in studies on this. I found the studies on the effects of child molestation that were done recently to be similar to my own experience. Meaning, I was molested twice when I was nine, but I don't have "lasting scars" from it (probably because it wasn't full-on rape).
If I had a kid who'd been fucked by someone my own age or older, I'd surely take him/her to a counselor, and I'd want to hear what he/she had to say. I like to think I'd be calm and nonjudgmental about it. Surely there have been studies on this? Just anecdotally, I have never heard a man say that he'd feel "traumatized" if he'd fucked an older woman at this age. But I have been told by a man who it actually happened to that--though he doesn't have bad memories of it--he's never had a long-term, stable relationship (he's in his 30s). Neither of us would--with surety--say this is because of the affair he had a 14, but it seems logical to start there.
It's just fact that kids most often don't see predators coming. For every kid who has a lovely experience with a grownup, there will be more who are abused and used. The laws are there for those kids. Doesn't it stand to reason that for every kind, emotionally stable 40-yr-old who's fallen in love with the 14-yr-old kid down the street, there are two predatory, stunted, weirdos who want to use a helpless body? I mean, we all read Youth Pastor Watch. I'm perfectly fine with having laws that make the nice adult wait a few years, if it stops the creeps.
I don't know if you read my previous post (it's pretty long). I was trying to not come across as too lecturing or hand-wringing. But I think that trying to remove "the grownups" from these situations would be impossible, because this can never be simply "about the kids." The kids didn't start it; the kids can't consent to it; and the kids (more often than not) can't stop it once it starts. But who is more likely to be hurt by it? The kids. The kids can't protect themselves if they need protection. This is why grownups (other than the ones wanting to fuck the kids) have to be involved.
We make decisions about everything having to do with our kids. Hell, we decide what they eat, what they read, who their teachers are. Why wouldn't we get to decide who fucks them and when?
And maybe we are too emotional about it, but what are the alternatives? Not being involved? For every sane, kind, emotionally stable adult wanting to fuck a 13-yr-old, Matthew, I can guarantee you there are many more unstable, emotionally stunted, control freaks out there wanting to take advantage of a weaker (both emotionally and physically) human being. That's just human nature.
Most parents will say, that yes, their kids are "treasured beings" who need defending. I'm not sure why you think that's not a valid attitude. Surely you can see the difference between parents treasuring and defending their kids and the government/husbands treasuring and defending grown women?
Yes, adults make stupid decisions. People are always going to make stupid decisions. And, as adults, we're much more capable of dealing with the fallout of those decisions than we were as children. As adults, we are well aware that there are many, many more bitches and assholes out there willing to hurt us than there are nice men and women. We are--as a rule--emotionally and physically ready to handle it. Children don't understand that yet. They will. It usually becomes more clear around 16-17 years old.
This isn't hand-wringing or "SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!" Cult of the Children conservatism. This is trying to eliminate exploitation and violence as much as possible. Time enough for these kids to be hurt as teens and adults, you know?
Those sane, kind, emotionally stable adults will just have to wait a few more years before they can fuck the adolescent loves of their lives, I guess.
More...
If I had a kid who'd been fucked by someone my own age or older, I'd surely take him/her to a counselor, and I'd want to hear what he/she had to say. I like to think I'd be calm and nonjudgmental about it. Surely there have been studies on this? Just anecdotally, I have never heard a man say that he'd feel "traumatized" if he'd fucked an older woman at this age. But I have been told by a man who it actually happened to that--though he doesn't have bad memories of it--he's never had a long-term, stable relationship (he's in his 30s). Neither of us would--with surety--say this is because of the affair he had a 14, but it seems logical to start there.
It's just fact that kids most often don't see predators coming. For every kid who has a lovely experience with a grownup, there will be more who are abused and used. The laws are there for those kids. Doesn't it stand to reason that for every kind, emotionally stable 40-yr-old who's fallen in love with the 14-yr-old kid down the street, there are two predatory, stunted, weirdos who want to use a helpless body? I mean, we all read Youth Pastor Watch. I'm perfectly fine with having laws that make the nice adult wait a few years, if it stops the creeps.
I don't know if you read my previous post (it's pretty long). I was trying to not come across as too lecturing or hand-wringing. But I think that trying to remove "the grownups" from these situations would be impossible, because this can never be simply "about the kids." The kids didn't start it; the kids can't consent to it; and the kids (more often than not) can't stop it once it starts. But who is more likely to be hurt by it? The kids. The kids can't protect themselves if they need protection. This is why grownups (other than the ones wanting to fuck the kids) have to be involved.
We make decisions about everything having to do with our kids. Hell, we decide what they eat, what they read, who their teachers are. Why wouldn't we get to decide who fucks them and when?
And maybe we are too emotional about it, but what are the alternatives? Not being involved? For every sane, kind, emotionally stable adult wanting to fuck a 13-yr-old, Matthew, I can guarantee you there are many more unstable, emotionally stunted, control freaks out there wanting to take advantage of a weaker (both emotionally and physically) human being. That's just human nature.
Most parents will say, that yes, their kids are "treasured beings" who need defending. I'm not sure why you think that's not a valid attitude. Surely you can see the difference between parents treasuring and defending their kids and the government/husbands treasuring and defending grown women?
Yes, adults make stupid decisions. People are always going to make stupid decisions. And, as adults, we're much more capable of dealing with the fallout of those decisions than we were as children. As adults, we are well aware that there are many, many more bitches and assholes out there willing to hurt us than there are nice men and women. We are--as a rule--emotionally and physically ready to handle it. Children don't understand that yet. They will. It usually becomes more clear around 16-17 years old.
This isn't hand-wringing or "SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!" Cult of the Children conservatism. This is trying to eliminate exploitation and violence as much as possible. Time enough for these kids to be hurt as teens and adults, you know?
Those sane, kind, emotionally stable adults will just have to wait a few more years before they can fuck the adolescent loves of their lives, I guess.
28
Fuck. I'm sorry about the long posts. I don't know how to say what I want to say more succinctly!
Here's a good movie on the topic: http://www.imdb.com/find?q=hard+candy&so…
Here's a good movie on the topic: http://www.imdb.com/find?q=hard+candy&so…
29
I agree with those commenting about age and the law. I don't care if the 13 year old had the penis, he still didn't have the power.
30
And that, my friends, is why women so very rarely speak out against violence and abuse.
and I don't care how "mature" you are at 13. Experimenting with kids your own age is not the same as an experienced adult manipulating you. Period. There are laws for a reason.
But then, to be an ass....
"Omg, he totally deserved it! Look at what he was wearing, I mean he was practically asking for it. How could she stop herself?"
the way this gets handled here on out may well traumatize the boy more than anything else.
And that, my friends, is why women so very rarely speak out against violence and abuse.
and I don't care how "mature" you are at 13. Experimenting with kids your own age is not the same as an experienced adult manipulating you. Period. There are laws for a reason.
But then, to be an ass....
"Omg, he totally deserved it! Look at what he was wearing, I mean he was practically asking for it. How could she stop herself?"
32
@26 I don't like to make broad judgments about people I do not know, but you, sir or ma'am, are a bad person. Put down your copy of Lolita (no offense to those who like this Book. I enjoyed it, but if I'd said Alice in Wonderland, I'd have to explain how the author wrote it for a NINE YEAR OLD named Alice he was romantically inlove with) and actually think about what you just said. The job of parents specifically and adults in general, is to protect the young. We feel horrified and disgusted with this because this is a child, who has been attacked. Oh sure it was attacked with sex, but hey rape is attacking someone with sex too.
Just because a fall down drunk woman didn't necessarily say "no" to sex, doesn't mean she gave consent as her decision making skills weren't operating on all levels. A horny pubescent child, who's cognitive powers have not developed fully, also cannot give consent. It's sexual assault across the board.
Just because a fall down drunk woman didn't necessarily say "no" to sex, doesn't mean she gave consent as her decision making skills weren't operating on all levels. A horny pubescent child, who's cognitive powers have not developed fully, also cannot give consent. It's sexual assault across the board.
33
I'm not trying to understate the trauma of actual molestation and sexual assault, particularly of children, but I think that the tendency of adults to call pretty much any sexual activity at a young age "molestation" does more harm than good.
For example, when I was six my neighbor (who as eight) told me to take my clothes off and I did. And so did he. Then we fiddled around a bit, but I wasn't "molested" until my mother came in, threw a hairy fit, and told me I couldn't see that boy again. Guess which part of that story fucked me up for 15 years.
For example, when I was six my neighbor (who as eight) told me to take my clothes off and I did. And so did he. Then we fiddled around a bit, but I wasn't "molested" until my mother came in, threw a hairy fit, and told me I couldn't see that boy again. Guess which part of that story fucked me up for 15 years.
34
Dan,
I wonder how this plays off in the entire human population? Might not culture have an influence in determining these laws? Is a 30 y/o woman having consensual sex with a 15 y/o teenage male (or female for that matter) a pedophile? It is so easy to conclude the usual 45+ y/o male having consensual sex with a 13 y/o female a pedophile? When I lived in Cameroon, Africa my colleague and friend married his second wife (he was Muslim and a polygamist) who was 17 y/o. He was 45 y/o. She had no say in the arrangement. It's been pointed out in this Slog that Mary Kay LeTourneau and her husband who she met at 12 or 13 y/o (?) are married with 3 children between them. Woody Allen is still happily married to the daughter of his former girlfriend 10 years +. Were LeTourneau & Allen ever pedophiles?
Look, I don't condone this PTA Mom's action in anyway, shape or form. Yes, teenagers (17 y/o & under) need legal protection. However, determining exactly at what age sound judgement is manifest is a tough call. Some have no fallout from an experience like this 13 y/o boy, others do. But, it can also be said of children who grow up w/o any major trauma in the their young lives that some have terrible relationships as adults. I do believe there are predatory people (mostly male) out there who prey on children. The resolution of the Adam Walsh (a 6 y/o boy who was abducted and murdered in 1981 who's killer was just identified yesterday) case was a somber reminder.
I wonder how this plays off in the entire human population? Might not culture have an influence in determining these laws? Is a 30 y/o woman having consensual sex with a 15 y/o teenage male (or female for that matter) a pedophile? It is so easy to conclude the usual 45+ y/o male having consensual sex with a 13 y/o female a pedophile? When I lived in Cameroon, Africa my colleague and friend married his second wife (he was Muslim and a polygamist) who was 17 y/o. He was 45 y/o. She had no say in the arrangement. It's been pointed out in this Slog that Mary Kay LeTourneau and her husband who she met at 12 or 13 y/o (?) are married with 3 children between them. Woody Allen is still happily married to the daughter of his former girlfriend 10 years +. Were LeTourneau & Allen ever pedophiles?
Look, I don't condone this PTA Mom's action in anyway, shape or form. Yes, teenagers (17 y/o & under) need legal protection. However, determining exactly at what age sound judgement is manifest is a tough call. Some have no fallout from an experience like this 13 y/o boy, others do. But, it can also be said of children who grow up w/o any major trauma in the their young lives that some have terrible relationships as adults. I do believe there are predatory people (mostly male) out there who prey on children. The resolution of the Adam Walsh (a 6 y/o boy who was abducted and murdered in 1981 who's killer was just identified yesterday) case was a somber reminder.
35
Remember those carefree days of 1980?
Captain Oveur: You ever seen a grown man naked?
Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
When I was 13, trudging through the snow to school, one of my neighbors who worked at the school would often take pity on me and offer me a ride.
She would often wear a dress with a zipper down the front. I would spend the whole ride fantasizing about pulling that zipper down. She was in her mid-thirties and quite cute. But nothing ever happened.
Captain Oveur: You ever seen a grown man naked?
Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
When I was 13, trudging through the snow to school, one of my neighbors who worked at the school would often take pity on me and offer me a ride.
She would often wear a dress with a zipper down the front. I would spend the whole ride fantasizing about pulling that zipper down. She was in her mid-thirties and quite cute. But nothing ever happened.
37
@The CHZA, having sex with a messed-up person usually isn't awesome, especially as a first sexual experience. And a woman in her 40s who wants to have sex with a 13yo definitely has deep issues.
I'm convinced that we have a right to unfulfilled fantasies. otherwise, whither erotic imagination and all those fun kinks? Bet No Harm, No Foul has some good ones.
I'm convinced that we have a right to unfulfilled fantasies. otherwise, whither erotic imagination and all those fun kinks? Bet No Harm, No Foul has some good ones.
38
the problem isn't age, people. and i think jade's covered it pretty comprehensively, but the problem is the unbalance of power. two thirteen-year-olds fucking around are on an even (legal) footing, though usually the guy has a slight upper hand if it's a mixed-gender couple because our society beats girls down a bit in all regards. but at least they are legally equal.
an adult - any adult, 18 year old or 40 - has a significant imbalance of power in his/her favor in private sexual encounters with someone so much younger. if this person had been a teacher (some posters are assuming this; i'm reading PTA mom, though that's just more infuriating somehow) which would be yet another, heavier imbalance of power. is it not clear this is fucked up?
dan, i'm not sure what you're leading to at the end, there. sure, he's going to be traumatized by the whole lot - but that is how fucked-up situations are. in this case, either sexual assault or at the very least, molestation with his pants off. yeah, it's gonna be traumatizing. lots of rape victims feel the same, that the legal process is unsympathetic and fucked up, which is why they don't report crimes. i want to be clear that the fault lies with the attacker, and not with the boy or the police. it's the always the fault of the instigator, which in this case is a 40 year old woman who really, really ought to know better - and who shouldn't be fucking around with 13 year olds whatever she knows (or doesn't know). your kid's only a year older than my oldest nephew, dan, which puts him just a few months shy of 13 himself. how would you feel if the PTA mom was in your parking lot with your kid? because i would want to kill, if it were me. and she would deserve it.
an adult - any adult, 18 year old or 40 - has a significant imbalance of power in his/her favor in private sexual encounters with someone so much younger. if this person had been a teacher (some posters are assuming this; i'm reading PTA mom, though that's just more infuriating somehow) which would be yet another, heavier imbalance of power. is it not clear this is fucked up?
dan, i'm not sure what you're leading to at the end, there. sure, he's going to be traumatized by the whole lot - but that is how fucked-up situations are. in this case, either sexual assault or at the very least, molestation with his pants off. yeah, it's gonna be traumatizing. lots of rape victims feel the same, that the legal process is unsympathetic and fucked up, which is why they don't report crimes. i want to be clear that the fault lies with the attacker, and not with the boy or the police. it's the always the fault of the instigator, which in this case is a 40 year old woman who really, really ought to know better - and who shouldn't be fucking around with 13 year olds whatever she knows (or doesn't know). your kid's only a year older than my oldest nephew, dan, which puts him just a few months shy of 13 himself. how would you feel if the PTA mom was in your parking lot with your kid? because i would want to kill, if it were me. and she would deserve it.
39
@38. Thank you.
I'll also add to your great post, that most rational, intelligent, kind, thoughtful adults (i.e., the only kind of adult who should be around pre-teens and teens in intimate settings of any kind) wouldn't go there with a kid because of the very reasons Dan listed. The fallout when they get caught always, always, always harms the child more than the adult.
Even if a kind, thoughtful, rational adult wants to have sex with a kid, and truly believes sex won't harm the kid, he/she still wouldn't do it, simply because when they get caught, that would traumatize the kid.
Adults, when they're kind, thoughtful, and rational don't fuck kids. Because these kind of adults put the kid's safety and well-being first. It's the other kind of adult that throws caution aside and thinks only of his/her own needs, and to hell with the consequences.
I'll also add to your great post, that most rational, intelligent, kind, thoughtful adults (i.e., the only kind of adult who should be around pre-teens and teens in intimate settings of any kind) wouldn't go there with a kid because of the very reasons Dan listed. The fallout when they get caught always, always, always harms the child more than the adult.
Even if a kind, thoughtful, rational adult wants to have sex with a kid, and truly believes sex won't harm the kid, he/she still wouldn't do it, simply because when they get caught, that would traumatize the kid.
Adults, when they're kind, thoughtful, and rational don't fuck kids. Because these kind of adults put the kid's safety and well-being first. It's the other kind of adult that throws caution aside and thinks only of his/her own needs, and to hell with the consequences.
40
my thoughts exactly. well, except that i can not imagine being a kind, rational adult who would *want* to fuck kids and have to resist the impulse. seriously? are there people like that?
this is a 13 year old boy. my god, i wasn't attracted to 13 year old boys when i was myself 13. thirteen year old boys are unattractive on every level, sexual being only the most so. they get better, but my god. thirteen?? and she just couldn't keep her hands off him. jesus.
that was a little rant, and i will instruct the jury to disregard it.
adults who see children as sexual creatures need, at the very least, a bulletproof behavior filter to keep themselves in check until the age of majority. there is no excuse for this. none.
this is a 13 year old boy. my god, i wasn't attracted to 13 year old boys when i was myself 13. thirteen year old boys are unattractive on every level, sexual being only the most so. they get better, but my god. thirteen?? and she just couldn't keep her hands off him. jesus.
that was a little rant, and i will instruct the jury to disregard it.
adults who see children as sexual creatures need, at the very least, a bulletproof behavior filter to keep themselves in check until the age of majority. there is no excuse for this. none.
41
So, @38, @39 and etc. in conclusion, you certainly have strong feelings. But still, what are they about? That boy gets talked about, over and over, and his victimization is hauled out again and again as the occasion for us to feel our rage and our deep virtuous concern about kids. Yet no one -- still -- knows or cares to find out what the boy thinks. His life is a mute prop for some other drama. You should focus all this feeling somewhere else. Or, you should be curious about the kid, and give credence to what he says.
42
Matthew, how are we supposed to ask the kid about his feelings? Who do you think ought to conduct the interview? We ought to know nothing about what the kid feels, as that is his business and not ours.
If you're trying to make the point that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the kid feels violated and molested by this woman, fine, you're free to make that point.
Doesn't make what the adult did any less wrong or any less stupid.
By the way, do you show up in the "Youth Pastor Watch" threads pointing out that no one "knows or cares to find out what the boy [or girl] thinks"?
If you're trying to make the point that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the kid feels violated and molested by this woman, fine, you're free to make that point.
Doesn't make what the adult did any less wrong or any less stupid.
By the way, do you show up in the "Youth Pastor Watch" threads pointing out that no one "knows or cares to find out what the boy [or girl] thinks"?
43
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the age of consent in Spain, Sweden, and a few other Northern European countries is TWELVE. The U.S. was founded by ultra-conservative religionists and further fucked up by Victorian ideologies. Grow up, grow a pair, and lighten up, good god.
44
@41. Matthew, I've already said plenty here (probably too much), so I won't keep repeating myself (hopefully). I do not think your questions or comments are without merit. I think you're asking good, important, meaningful questions. I imagine there are studies out there that address your questions. I hope there are.
I'm sorry that I'm coming across to you as "dramatic" and dismissive of these kids' feelings or experiences. I can only say that I don't feel hysterical or dramatic about this, and I don't think I'm approaching the topic this way.
That being said, I don't think hardly any of us can fully approach adult/child sexual relations without our "feelings" getting somewhat involved (including you). Most of us are not emotional vacuums. But we're rational adults, and I think we've all (mostly) been talking about this without hysteria or judgment. Accusing those of us who disagree with you as basing our thoughts strictly on "drama" and "feeling" isn't fair of you, I think.
Maybe I'm not giving enough credence to what the kids think, but neither am I giving credence to what the good, healthy, kind adults think. My bottom line is that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
The end. I'm done. Peace out.
I'm sorry that I'm coming across to you as "dramatic" and dismissive of these kids' feelings or experiences. I can only say that I don't feel hysterical or dramatic about this, and I don't think I'm approaching the topic this way.
That being said, I don't think hardly any of us can fully approach adult/child sexual relations without our "feelings" getting somewhat involved (including you). Most of us are not emotional vacuums. But we're rational adults, and I think we've all (mostly) been talking about this without hysteria or judgment. Accusing those of us who disagree with you as basing our thoughts strictly on "drama" and "feeling" isn't fair of you, I think.
Maybe I'm not giving enough credence to what the kids think, but neither am I giving credence to what the good, healthy, kind adults think. My bottom line is that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
The end. I'm done. Peace out.
45
@44, I'm sorry if my tone offended. I think you've been very fair and reasonable, and I appreciate the care with which you've spoken here. "Strong feelings" and "drama" are not things I feel dismissive of. I was just trying to point out that when we have them about strangers, especially distant strangers whose own account of things is not needed for us to have our feelings (and not welcome if it contradicts our feelings), it often is not really about the strangers. And yes, like everyone, I have strong feelings about this too. I just try to remember what they are about and not project them onto others. I'm sure you do the same.
46
Yes, lighten up! It's great for these 13, 14, and 15yo boys to be able to bang women more than twice their age and become proud papas—
Oops.
Aside from everything else, that right there's a problem. Remember the 13yo that Mary Kay LeTourneau had sex with, then married? By the ripe old age of 15, he had 2 kids, whom he'll be financially and legally responsible for until they're 18. Studly! High five! Think he understood he was consenting to that, when he went along with his 34yo teacher's advances? This doesn't even take into account the fact that he'll have to provide for his penniless, ex-con, registered sex-offender wife also, who will be 70 when he's 49. What a load of manly responsibility.
BTW, a good Slate article crunching the numbers on sentencing:
http://www.slate.com/id/2134158/
Oops.
Aside from everything else, that right there's a problem. Remember the 13yo that Mary Kay LeTourneau had sex with, then married? By the ripe old age of 15, he had 2 kids, whom he'll be financially and legally responsible for until they're 18. Studly! High five! Think he understood he was consenting to that, when he went along with his 34yo teacher's advances? This doesn't even take into account the fact that he'll have to provide for his penniless, ex-con, registered sex-offender wife also, who will be 70 when he's 49. What a load of manly responsibility.
BTW, a good Slate article crunching the numbers on sentencing:
http://www.slate.com/id/2134158/
47
@45. Oh. Good! Thank you for clarifying things! I really appreciate it.
I think that #43 made a good point about the age of consent in other countries being much lower than ours. For that reason alone, I hope/wish we'd have more conversations about this and studies about this issue with--yes--the kids who've experienced it firsthand.
And, as I said earlier, the age of consent for gay teens needs to be 16, like it is for straight teens.
OK, I promise I'm shutting up now. I'm always afraid of dominating conversations in forums like these.
I think that #43 made a good point about the age of consent in other countries being much lower than ours. For that reason alone, I hope/wish we'd have more conversations about this and studies about this issue with--yes--the kids who've experienced it firsthand.
And, as I said earlier, the age of consent for gay teens needs to be 16, like it is for straight teens.
OK, I promise I'm shutting up now. I'm always afraid of dominating conversations in forums like these.
48
...in closing: so, are there no broad studies of kids' accounts and experiences in these relationships? I'm especially curious how countries where kids have legal rights (i.e., a lower age of consent...12 is not uncommon) compare to those where kids do not have legal rights, like the US. I wonder if its like our experience with teen sexuality, where the countries that "ban" it and preach abstinence have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion?
I'm really impressed by the tone and reasonableness of this thread, including Dan's initial post, but I am appalled if a culture that cares so deeply about this issue really has never looked closely at the long-term effects on the kids who might not have perceived of themselves as victims. Any culture that actually cares about kids would ask those questions.
I'm really impressed by the tone and reasonableness of this thread, including Dan's initial post, but I am appalled if a culture that cares so deeply about this issue really has never looked closely at the long-term effects on the kids who might not have perceived of themselves as victims. Any culture that actually cares about kids would ask those questions.
49
I wonder though, what if he was gay and in that car with a man?
would anyone question weather or not he was a victim.
would anyone question weather or not he was a victim.
50
I think there may be a mentality here wherein people view the child himself as being persecuted.
I don't think that's the issue, though. The issue is that the ADULT in this case pursued and engaged in a very inappropriate relationship. She was in a position of trust and power over this child. The child's parents trusted her not to do just this sort of thing and she failed them.
The child himself may or may not have been traumatized. That really depends on the kid. The real crime here may just be against the parents and the school system.
The Child is not going to be punished except, perhaps, by his parents.
I don't think that's the issue, though. The issue is that the ADULT in this case pursued and engaged in a very inappropriate relationship. She was in a position of trust and power over this child. The child's parents trusted her not to do just this sort of thing and she failed them.
The child himself may or may not have been traumatized. That really depends on the kid. The real crime here may just be against the parents and the school system.
The Child is not going to be punished except, perhaps, by his parents.
51
matthew --
there are a few problems with your line of questioning: you are assuming we don't care what the child thinks, and you are assuming that what the child thinks is of this strange unique importance... on can care what the child thinks, consider it, and still come to a strong conclusion that differs from that of a thirteen year old. or a nine year old. or a child too young to offer an opinion.
if we have to judge each case on a case by case basis based on the child's opinion, then we no longer have laws working as a deterrent to adults (the party who should know better). the adult would then be more likely to manipulate the child, and then you are making the child, at thirteen, responsible for the adults actions. you are asking a child -- who may be being manipulated -- to decide if they were manipulated, if they were "abused", and asking a child to meet out punishment to someone they likely care about, even if they are being taken advantage of.
with domestic violence, eventually laws were passed that forced an arrest when violence occurred. this was because adults -- not thirteen year olds -- but adults were unable to seek defense from the system of justice when it was left up to them. whatever the excuse was.
we cannot leave the decision entirely up to a victim in such cases. since many if not most thirteen year olds involved with forty year olds are victims, laws must favor protecting them, and laws must act as a deterrent to those who would take advantage.
i agree with dan in that victim's are often treated by police, family, friends, and the media in a more harmful way than the actual abuse. that should be the first focus of change in the way we handle these cases. and if you want to start moving the age of consent down from sixteen, let's talk about that. thirteen is a pretty big jump.
finally, since all adults were children at one point, we are not speaking in a vacuum. we do have our own experiences to draw from. it's not that we don't care what the victim, the child, thinks. it's that we already know what they can think. there are only so many options. the basis being: they were into it and not manipulated. they were into it and manipulated. they were not into it and manipulated. the adult has already put their lust above the best interest of the child and law, regardless of how in love they feel.
just for the record, i'm not entirely happy with our current laws, not the way we deal with victims. i think we can make improvements. your line of questioning just seems a little weird to me. there are so many important questions, and i feel like your's is a polite, but agenda driven question regarding one aspect of the entire picture.
More...
there are a few problems with your line of questioning: you are assuming we don't care what the child thinks, and you are assuming that what the child thinks is of this strange unique importance... on can care what the child thinks, consider it, and still come to a strong conclusion that differs from that of a thirteen year old. or a nine year old. or a child too young to offer an opinion.
if we have to judge each case on a case by case basis based on the child's opinion, then we no longer have laws working as a deterrent to adults (the party who should know better). the adult would then be more likely to manipulate the child, and then you are making the child, at thirteen, responsible for the adults actions. you are asking a child -- who may be being manipulated -- to decide if they were manipulated, if they were "abused", and asking a child to meet out punishment to someone they likely care about, even if they are being taken advantage of.
with domestic violence, eventually laws were passed that forced an arrest when violence occurred. this was because adults -- not thirteen year olds -- but adults were unable to seek defense from the system of justice when it was left up to them. whatever the excuse was.
we cannot leave the decision entirely up to a victim in such cases. since many if not most thirteen year olds involved with forty year olds are victims, laws must favor protecting them, and laws must act as a deterrent to those who would take advantage.
i agree with dan in that victim's are often treated by police, family, friends, and the media in a more harmful way than the actual abuse. that should be the first focus of change in the way we handle these cases. and if you want to start moving the age of consent down from sixteen, let's talk about that. thirteen is a pretty big jump.
finally, since all adults were children at one point, we are not speaking in a vacuum. we do have our own experiences to draw from. it's not that we don't care what the victim, the child, thinks. it's that we already know what they can think. there are only so many options. the basis being: they were into it and not manipulated. they were into it and manipulated. they were not into it and manipulated. the adult has already put their lust above the best interest of the child and law, regardless of how in love they feel.
just for the record, i'm not entirely happy with our current laws, not the way we deal with victims. i think we can make improvements. your line of questioning just seems a little weird to me. there are so many important questions, and i feel like your's is a polite, but agenda driven question regarding one aspect of the entire picture.
53
oh, and i think "to catch a predator" sucks and is sensationalism at it's worst. (just to balance opinion above a little.)
55
Yes, SaraD, you do make a good point. I guess I was alluding to my statement that rational adults would put the kid's well-being ahead of their own. When I posted that link, I was thinking of this exchange:
Jeff Kohlver: You were coming on to me!
Hayley Stark: Oh, come on. That's what they always say, Jeff.
Jeff Kohlver: Who?
Hayley Stark: Who? The pedophiles! 'Oh, she was so sexy. She was asking for it.' 'She was only technically a girl, she acted like a woman.' It's just so easy to blame a kid, isn't it! Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does NOT mean she's ready to do what a woman does.
[pause]
Hayley Stark: I mean, you're the grown up here. If a kid is experimenting and says something flirtatious, you ignore it, you don't encourage it. If a kid says 'Heeey, let's make screwdrivers' you take the alcohol away and you don't race them to the next drink!
Jeff Kohlver: You were coming on to me!
Hayley Stark: Oh, come on. That's what they always say, Jeff.
Jeff Kohlver: Who?
Hayley Stark: Who? The pedophiles! 'Oh, she was so sexy. She was asking for it.' 'She was only technically a girl, she acted like a woman.' It's just so easy to blame a kid, isn't it! Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does NOT mean she's ready to do what a woman does.
[pause]
Hayley Stark: I mean, you're the grown up here. If a kid is experimenting and says something flirtatious, you ignore it, you don't encourage it. If a kid says 'Heeey, let's make screwdrivers' you take the alcohol away and you don't race them to the next drink!
56
@51 I've been unclear. I'm not advocating for adults to interrogate kids. I'm pointing out that if you are not going to elicit and give credence to the kid's account, then you really aren't concerned with the kid; you are concerned about something else, so I'd hope you could leave the kid out of it. The healthy response to this situation, I think, is not posting deeply felt denouncements of the adults, defending the kid, having big feelings about the injustice and the victim and all that drama, etc. The police should not have to deal with this as a crime; though the families and those who know and care about the actual people involved (that's not us), should be very interested in knowing more, both from the kid and the woman. If they care about the kid, they'll give credence to what he says. If we care about kids, generally, we'll look for chances where we can know and respect kids, NOT chances to project our unresolved feelings about victimization onto them . This arrest and even this thread are mostly the later. I've only been posting to make that point, not to advocate for interrogating the kid.
57
While it isn't politically correct, the kid likely would likely not have much negative to say about the incident. When I was 13 I sure as hell wouldn't be fooled by "let's play a game" or other BS like that. A 13 yr old boy would be excited as hell at the chance to get some nookie. Frankly I think a lot of 13 yr old girls are more fucked up by these horny boys at that age. He knew exactly what he was doing and what he wanted. And I can't say I blame him at that age. Pretty fucking thrilling for some older woman to be offering it up to you when you're walking around with a permanent erection. Just reality, whether people like to talk about it or not.
58
@matthew
it's obvious you care how the kid feels, and what he thinks, and how he copes with all this - and that is important no matter what comes of it. i hope it's clear that the adult female molester's behavior is criminal and deserving of prosecution no matter how the kid feels and/or how he deals with it.
people who are abused and taken advantage of are in no position to recommend a course of action against the abuser. yes, survivors' feelings should be considered (for their own sakes, not for the abusers') and their voices heard. there is no need for this boy to take the responsibility of considering punishment for her anyway, because we already have laws firmly in place to prevent adults taking advantage of children sexually. these laws are unambiguous: abusers are in the wrong. children are not in a strong enough legal position to protect themselves physically or emotionally from adults who have power over them. a child abused by family, neighbors, or teachers are especially vulnerable because they have no control over their circumstances. think about it: what can they do? they can't move away, they can't change schools, they can't control who comes to visit or who cares for them. they can't choose doctors, teachers, or churches. until age 15 they can't work for money and until 18 they can't drive without restrictions. this boy is 13 years old. he is at the mercy of the adults in his life, and this abuser is (was) one of them.
a child's feelings are strong but uncomplicated. they don't have the experience to make judgments and comparisons that we do. and this is very clearly a case of abuse by the attacker, which is why she was taken into custody and embarrassed publicly for behavior she should already know is way, way out of line. it's not about love, however it is dressed up: it's about abuse. love would recognize the problem and wait five years. abusers take whatever they can get, immediately.
that PTA mom, with 40 years of life experience, knows her behavior was criminal, abusive, and that she carried the balance of power. this is true and relevant to her need for rehabilitation, treatment, or incarceration - whether the kid she abused is forgiving of her or not. whether he had feelings about her that transcend the abuser/victim dynamic or not. whether she was caught and prosecuted or whether they were never found out. his feelings are important and relevant *to him*. and they are not relevant to whether this woman is prosecuted for molesting him. she should be. and i certainly hope he comes through okay.
More...
it's obvious you care how the kid feels, and what he thinks, and how he copes with all this - and that is important no matter what comes of it. i hope it's clear that the adult female molester's behavior is criminal and deserving of prosecution no matter how the kid feels and/or how he deals with it.
people who are abused and taken advantage of are in no position to recommend a course of action against the abuser. yes, survivors' feelings should be considered (for their own sakes, not for the abusers') and their voices heard. there is no need for this boy to take the responsibility of considering punishment for her anyway, because we already have laws firmly in place to prevent adults taking advantage of children sexually. these laws are unambiguous: abusers are in the wrong. children are not in a strong enough legal position to protect themselves physically or emotionally from adults who have power over them. a child abused by family, neighbors, or teachers are especially vulnerable because they have no control over their circumstances. think about it: what can they do? they can't move away, they can't change schools, they can't control who comes to visit or who cares for them. they can't choose doctors, teachers, or churches. until age 15 they can't work for money and until 18 they can't drive without restrictions. this boy is 13 years old. he is at the mercy of the adults in his life, and this abuser is (was) one of them.
a child's feelings are strong but uncomplicated. they don't have the experience to make judgments and comparisons that we do. and this is very clearly a case of abuse by the attacker, which is why she was taken into custody and embarrassed publicly for behavior she should already know is way, way out of line. it's not about love, however it is dressed up: it's about abuse. love would recognize the problem and wait five years. abusers take whatever they can get, immediately.
that PTA mom, with 40 years of life experience, knows her behavior was criminal, abusive, and that she carried the balance of power. this is true and relevant to her need for rehabilitation, treatment, or incarceration - whether the kid she abused is forgiving of her or not. whether he had feelings about her that transcend the abuser/victim dynamic or not. whether she was caught and prosecuted or whether they were never found out. his feelings are important and relevant *to him*. and they are not relevant to whether this woman is prosecuted for molesting him. she should be. and i certainly hope he comes through okay.
59
@58 You seem to have a low opinion of children, which I don't share. No child I know is uncomplicated, nor powerless. Like most of the adults I know, they live in this unstable mix of awareness and fantasy, power and powerlessness, that is impossible to know well, from outside, without caring and giving credence to the child's self-reporting. Most of us extend that human courtesy to other grown ups (though, notably not to "adult female molesters"), but very few -- especially few in the passionate defend-our-kids crowd --would do the same for kids. We're too busy protecting them from the abuses they are stupid enough to be unaware of. This is when kids are truly powerless; when adult protectors position them as uncomplicated, unaware, unthinking victims. It used to be men protecting women ("...whose feelings are strong but uncomplicated..."). Now that feminism has robbed us of that pleasure we've turned our attention to the kids, who have conveniently been stripped of any legal rights.
60
@matthew
did you make no mistakes of inexperience as a child? did you do nothing you later regretted or thought differently of when you gained experience? ever?
recognizing that children are inexperienced, impulsive (especially when their hormonal desires are invoked), and at a disadvantage when someone more experienced is in a position to manipulate them, is really important to this discussion. if you really feel that children are on a level with adults, that would explain why you feel that recognition of abuse equates with a 'low opinion' of the abused.
take some other examples:
a casual kid's ultimate frisbee team is coached by a volunteer. the coach orders the players to run laps as a 'warm-up to prevent injury'. a few players observe that the warm-up is more strenuous and results in more fatigue and injuries than playing scrimmage points themselves, and want to stop. the coach urges them to continue, ignoring what he's been told about the kids' bodies by the kids themselves.
a family gathering runs late and the kids go off to bed. everyone is hugged goodnight except for the uncle who tells dirty jokes and generally skeeves all the girls out. the girls are gently told that creepy uncle's feelings will be hurt if he's excluded. the girls know being left out is cruel, so they hug him anyway, reluctantly.
a mildly retarded girl is registering for her high school classes. another girl in her class meets her at the registration table. neither have locker partners. the second girl cheerfully offers to sign up with the first. they finish registering and go home happy. a week into the school year, the second girl realizes that her locker partner depends on her to open the lock because the partner can't operate the dial or remember the combination. she's gently pressured by friends to move to another locker with less responsibility, which she does.
does this demonstrate impulsiveness, inexperience, and manipulation clearly enough? stuff like this happens every day. some of it is very subtle. children are certainly capable of making correct judgments in situations where there is pressure. the hard part is sticking to your guns when there is pressure to do otherwise. that is where inexperience hurts you. it's nothing to do with how smart you are, how determined, or how well you read the situation. impulsiveness is a trademark of childhood as much as inexperiences, and both are powerful tools for an abuser to use against you.
More...
did you make no mistakes of inexperience as a child? did you do nothing you later regretted or thought differently of when you gained experience? ever?
recognizing that children are inexperienced, impulsive (especially when their hormonal desires are invoked), and at a disadvantage when someone more experienced is in a position to manipulate them, is really important to this discussion. if you really feel that children are on a level with adults, that would explain why you feel that recognition of abuse equates with a 'low opinion' of the abused.
take some other examples:
a casual kid's ultimate frisbee team is coached by a volunteer. the coach orders the players to run laps as a 'warm-up to prevent injury'. a few players observe that the warm-up is more strenuous and results in more fatigue and injuries than playing scrimmage points themselves, and want to stop. the coach urges them to continue, ignoring what he's been told about the kids' bodies by the kids themselves.
a family gathering runs late and the kids go off to bed. everyone is hugged goodnight except for the uncle who tells dirty jokes and generally skeeves all the girls out. the girls are gently told that creepy uncle's feelings will be hurt if he's excluded. the girls know being left out is cruel, so they hug him anyway, reluctantly.
a mildly retarded girl is registering for her high school classes. another girl in her class meets her at the registration table. neither have locker partners. the second girl cheerfully offers to sign up with the first. they finish registering and go home happy. a week into the school year, the second girl realizes that her locker partner depends on her to open the lock because the partner can't operate the dial or remember the combination. she's gently pressured by friends to move to another locker with less responsibility, which she does.
does this demonstrate impulsiveness, inexperience, and manipulation clearly enough? stuff like this happens every day. some of it is very subtle. children are certainly capable of making correct judgments in situations where there is pressure. the hard part is sticking to your guns when there is pressure to do otherwise. that is where inexperience hurts you. it's nothing to do with how smart you are, how determined, or how well you read the situation. impulsiveness is a trademark of childhood as much as inexperiences, and both are powerful tools for an abuser to use against you.
61
Is it possible that we're all being too extreme? Does it have to be an either/or? Maybe a kid's thoughts on this aren't "uncomplicated," but maybe they aren't reliable "self-reporting" either. In other words, no, we shouldn't discount what kids think, but neither should we treat them as we would adults.
What we do know for sure is that most adults who are into fucking pre-teens and teens aren't acting in the best interest of the kids. We know that as fact. Don't we?
What we do know for sure is that most adults who are into fucking pre-teens and teens aren't acting in the best interest of the kids. We know that as fact. Don't we?
62
matthew, you don't seem to want the opinion of anyone. you've already made your judgment, and that is fairly obvious. since your judgment is different than the current law, you suggest the rest of us are not in favor of considering the best interest of the child. the point of these laws is the best interest of the child. the point of these laws is also that the child might not know what is in their best interest.
that is where YOU must start your discussion.
are we wrong? do children in fact know what is in their best interest. thirteen is young. but according to your logic, we can ask any child (12? 9? 7?) how they feel about something before applying what we already know about adults, the law, and children from our experiences. that is backward, in this case.
so quit suggesting we don't care about the child -- it's annoying. we just came to a different conclusion than you.
if i am mistaken, please be clear and let me know what your point actually is. what different end would you like to see in this story? because it sounds to me like you want us to leave the boy alone, and let the woman's family talk with her. i'm not sure that is a reasonable system of justice or in the best interest of children.
though i think cases should be considered on a case by case basis, though i think the age of consent should be lowered, though i think maybe things that are not presently acted out, though i think the laws need to be changed, though i think victims need better protection, and though i think being attracted to some 16 year olds is not wrong, i still don't agree with what i can make of your position.
that is where YOU must start your discussion.
are we wrong? do children in fact know what is in their best interest. thirteen is young. but according to your logic, we can ask any child (12? 9? 7?) how they feel about something before applying what we already know about adults, the law, and children from our experiences. that is backward, in this case.
so quit suggesting we don't care about the child -- it's annoying. we just came to a different conclusion than you.
if i am mistaken, please be clear and let me know what your point actually is. what different end would you like to see in this story? because it sounds to me like you want us to leave the boy alone, and let the woman's family talk with her. i'm not sure that is a reasonable system of justice or in the best interest of children.
though i think cases should be considered on a case by case basis, though i think the age of consent should be lowered, though i think maybe things that are not presently acted out, though i think the laws need to be changed, though i think victims need better protection, and though i think being attracted to some 16 year olds is not wrong, i still don't agree with what i can make of your position.
64
All I know is that men who, like some of the above commenters, have problems with age-of-consent laws creep me the hell out, and I, an adult, make the mature and informed choice not to have sex with them. (Or be friends with them. Do you want someone around your kids or nieces or nephews who takes issue with age-of-consent laws?)
65
Providing someone else's kids with cigarettes and alcohol is illegal, I don't see why providing someone else's kids with sex, as an adult, shouldn't be punished.
66
@64. I'm in total agreement.
@65. But have we asked the kids how they feel about cigarettes and alcohol? Because until we do, we really just don't give a shit.
I'm sorry, Matthew, I couldn't resist! I'm seriously just kidding around. I'm in a weird mood today.
@65. But have we asked the kids how they feel about cigarettes and alcohol? Because until we do, we really just don't give a shit.
I'm sorry, Matthew, I couldn't resist! I'm seriously just kidding around. I'm in a weird mood today.
69
Well, we're drifting back to the usual ground of these discussions. Too bad. For sure a lot of people are creeped out by the suggestion that kids ought to have legal rights. I don't even know if kids should have; I was suggesting we'd be smart to find out. A lot of them actually have legal rights in other countries. Maybe we could find out if kids are safer there? But some are content to protect them, rather than give them that kind of power. That might be a good idea -- who would know? -- and it's certainly an enduring one. There's a long history of protecting others from dangers they may or may not perceive: rescuing Indians from their godless savagery; protecting the innocence of vulnerable women; civilizing the dark races of the world. It always begins by placing the other in some category apart, an idealized position that stirs our feelings, and then stripping them of their legal rights. I think that should be questioned.
70
no matthew... plenty of people want to discuss it. quit saying punishing this woman is akin to misogyny or the genocide of those indigenous to the american continents.
we are here and we want to talk. what do you want to talk about? the only thing you say is that we should ask children -- not this one, but in general -- how they feel about it. oh, and give them rights.
given we our starting point is an existing system, what would you like to see done differently? your ideas three ideas:
1. giving all children the rights and responsibilities of adults,
2. forcing children to decide if the adults who acted sexually toward or with them should be help responsible or not, and
3. just talking with kids instead of using our more mature logic and our own experiences
do not seem that groundbreaking or sensible even as a starting point for a discussion. your comments are too vague to discuss rationally. and anytime someone attempts to engage with you, you compare them to a sexually repressed misogynist aiming for genocide if not some other human rights violation.
hello?
we are here and we want to talk. what do you want to talk about? the only thing you say is that we should ask children -- not this one, but in general -- how they feel about it. oh, and give them rights.
given we our starting point is an existing system, what would you like to see done differently? your ideas three ideas:
1. giving all children the rights and responsibilities of adults,
2. forcing children to decide if the adults who acted sexually toward or with them should be help responsible or not, and
3. just talking with kids instead of using our more mature logic and our own experiences
do not seem that groundbreaking or sensible even as a starting point for a discussion. your comments are too vague to discuss rationally. and anytime someone attempts to engage with you, you compare them to a sexually repressed misogynist aiming for genocide if not some other human rights violation.
hello?
71
I consider it a distinct possibility that the articulate Matthew Stadler writing on this message board is identical to (or perhaps took his pseudonym from) writer Matthew Stadler, who is a pro-pedophile creep/activist. At this initial stage in his attempt to pervert public discourse on the sexual exploitation of children, Stadler is content with sowing a few douvts and redefining the terms. Notice the slippery slope of calling more lax Age of Consent laws in other parts of the world a child's "legal rights". Consider applying Stadler's method on various inhumane laws from other historical eras and contemporary places. What Stadler, in effect, is doing, is trying to repeal a breakthrough for civilization such as the Age of Consent laws. Matthew Stadler, when will we hear you arguing: "I don't know whether or not slavery in the South was ever wrong. I'm not saying it's right, it's just... we never ask the slaves themselves. All I'm saying is we should consider interviewing blacks, and ask how they view their situation. Maybe, eventually, we will arrive at the conclusion that it was wrong of Abraham Lincoln to deprive black people in the South of their legal rights to slavery."
More on Matthew Stadler can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sta…
"A synopsis on one of Stadler's pro-pedophile "novels" (from WikiPedia): The Sex Offender is a 1994 novel by Matthew Stadler. The book is strongly influenced by the theory of Michel Foucault on the links between state control of sex, health, and criminal behavior.[citation needed]
The Sex Offender chronicles the rehabilitation of a teacher (known as "Mr. uh, uh") who has had sex with a 12-year-old boy. He undergoes perverse forms of aversion therapy from the Orwellian Criminal and Health Ministry. Sessions involve watching pornographic movies while the offender's sexual arousal is measured and punishment administered. During these sessions, both the patient and his "Doctor-General" wear only bags over their heads.
Meanwhile, the offender begins visiting a forbidden night-club, lair of the drag queen Lucrezia, outlawed but idolized by pervert and politician alike. Lucrezia initiates the offender into a clandestine rebellion against the police state, and among the rebels he meets the child from the child pornography he watches in therapy.[!!! - Andreas]"
Andrew Vachss writes strongly and to the point on the need not to let pedophile propagandists like Matthew Stadler redefine our terms for us: http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/para…
More...
More on Matthew Stadler can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sta…
"A synopsis on one of Stadler's pro-pedophile "novels" (from WikiPedia): The Sex Offender is a 1994 novel by Matthew Stadler. The book is strongly influenced by the theory of Michel Foucault on the links between state control of sex, health, and criminal behavior.[citation needed]
The Sex Offender chronicles the rehabilitation of a teacher (known as "Mr. uh, uh") who has had sex with a 12-year-old boy. He undergoes perverse forms of aversion therapy from the Orwellian Criminal and Health Ministry. Sessions involve watching pornographic movies while the offender's sexual arousal is measured and punishment administered. During these sessions, both the patient and his "Doctor-General" wear only bags over their heads.
Meanwhile, the offender begins visiting a forbidden night-club, lair of the drag queen Lucrezia, outlawed but idolized by pervert and politician alike. Lucrezia initiates the offender into a clandestine rebellion against the police state, and among the rebels he meets the child from the child pornography he watches in therapy.[!!! - Andreas]"
Andrew Vachss writes strongly and to the point on the need not to let pedophile propagandists like Matthew Stadler redefine our terms for us: http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/para…
72
I consider it a distinct possibility that the articulate Matthew Stadler writing on this message board is identical to (or perhaps took his pseudonym from) writer Matthew Stadler, who is a pro-pedophile creep/activist. At this initial stage in his attempt to pervert public discourse on the sexual exploitation of children, Stadler is content with sowing a few douvts and redefining the terms. Notice the slippery slope of calling more lax Age of Consent laws in other parts of the world a child's "legal rights". Consider applying Stadler's method on various inhumane laws from other historical eras and contemporary places. What Stadler, in effect, is doing, is trying to repeal a breakthrough for civilization such as the Age of Consent laws. Matthew Stadler, when will we hear you arguing: "I don't know whether or not slavery in the South was ever wrong. I'm not saying it's right, it's just... we never ask the slaves themselves. All I'm saying is we should consider interviewing blacks, and ask how they view their situation. Maybe, eventually, we will arrive at the conclusion that it was wrong of Abraham Lincoln to deprive black people in the South of their legal rights to slavery."
More on Matthew Stadler can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sta…
"A synopsis on one of Stadler's pro-pedophile "novels" (from WikiPedia): The Sex Offender is a 1994 novel by Matthew Stadler. The book is strongly influenced by the theory of Michel Foucault on the links between state control of sex, health, and criminal behavior.[citation needed]
The Sex Offender chronicles the rehabilitation of a teacher (known as "Mr. uh, uh") who has had sex with a 12-year-old boy. He undergoes perverse forms of aversion therapy from the Orwellian Criminal and Health Ministry. Sessions involve watching pornographic movies while the offender's sexual arousal is measured and punishment administered. During these sessions, both the patient and his "Doctor-General" wear only bags over their heads.
Meanwhile, the offender begins visiting a forbidden night-club, lair of the drag queen Lucrezia, outlawed but idolized by pervert and politician alike. Lucrezia initiates the offender into a clandestine rebellion against the police state, and among the rebels he meets the child from the child pornography he watches in therapy.[!!! - Andreas]"
Andrew Vachss writes strongly and to the point on the need not to let pedophile propagandists like Matthew Stadler redefine our terms for us: http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/para…
More...
More on Matthew Stadler can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sta…
"A synopsis on one of Stadler's pro-pedophile "novels" (from WikiPedia): The Sex Offender is a 1994 novel by Matthew Stadler. The book is strongly influenced by the theory of Michel Foucault on the links between state control of sex, health, and criminal behavior.[citation needed]
The Sex Offender chronicles the rehabilitation of a teacher (known as "Mr. uh, uh") who has had sex with a 12-year-old boy. He undergoes perverse forms of aversion therapy from the Orwellian Criminal and Health Ministry. Sessions involve watching pornographic movies while the offender's sexual arousal is measured and punishment administered. During these sessions, both the patient and his "Doctor-General" wear only bags over their heads.
Meanwhile, the offender begins visiting a forbidden night-club, lair of the drag queen Lucrezia, outlawed but idolized by pervert and politician alike. Lucrezia initiates the offender into a clandestine rebellion against the police state, and among the rebels he meets the child from the child pornography he watches in therapy.[!!! - Andreas]"
Andrew Vachss writes strongly and to the point on the need not to let pedophile propagandists like Matthew Stadler redefine our terms for us: http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/para…
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (72) RSS