Deborah Lafave
There used to be a time where young gentlemen of a certain class in various parts of the world were "educated" in the arts of interacting with the females of the species in a more physical way. This education was arranged by their fathers with experienced ladies of more dubious background -- but often as part of the father's social presence with his mistress, his son(s) were expected to follow the lead.
Thankfully this practice is mostly a thing of the past in the Western world -- although I would not bet too heavily on its demise on other parts.... But this raises the question that all teenage boys have: when and where (soon, please) and how will I ever learn? Equally, I could easily see where a young woman might prefer to enjoy an encounter a young man who actually knows how to open a bra and what the various anatomical bits are.
Which brings us back to the older woman. As we all know statutory rape is a creation of law and not consent. It arbitrarily presumes a failure of consent -- public good, feeble young minds, recklessness ... all of these are serious and valid points. Thing is, there are lots of teenagers (not merely the feeble minded) who are seriously into the giving of consent and with a more than average understanding of the consequences. True, we cannot as a society say, "you can, because you are intelligent and you can't because you are a box of oatmeal" with reference to establishing who can give consent, but what of the large notion of who is taking advantage of who? I mean, take the putative intelligent, 15 year-old boy: a jar of hormones, eager to try anything. Can we say that this individual is too young for sex?
In the bad old days of the industrial revolution and before (basically since the dawn of time) the initiation into the existence and reality of sex was at a very young age -- living 10 to a room in a shanty/teepee/hogan/yurt/[whatever] it is in your face. Frankly, I am glad to be alive after the Victorian era. I am not sure I could stomach the other possibility. But there is no question that the 15 year old of today is FAR FAR more aware of sexuality than were the previous 5 generations and physically and medically far closer to maturity. Emotionally ... back to the intelligence and unfathomable quandry.
So along comes Mary Kay LeTourneau (sp?). She seduced a young boy of polynesian extraction. She went to prison for it. They were in love. She was released from prison, went straight back to him -- a violation of parole. Ultimately, they get married. In love, apparently. A career destroyed, time wasted festering at the pleasure of the state ... for what? Oh, and don't let me forget the baby she bore him while in the joint. Predator? I am sorry, but I can't get there ... but still a profound abuse of trust and fiduciary duty. Fit to teach young children? Hardly.
So we come to Deb Lafave. She is stunningly good looking, even to a 14 year old. Tall, natural pale blond, crystal blue eyes ... and a predator according to the DA. Let's be clear, the student wanted to. You are male going through puberty, you jump at the chance. Mensa or not. This is a pin-up wanting to show you the ropes. Duh. But consent ... in any possible sane meaning of the word the teen gives it. Societally, he did not. She was 11 years his senior and in a position of trust. She was hot for him and she was hot for her. Heck, we teach kids that age to practice safe sex - better abstinence, but if that fails, safety. Why would we teach that if not for the sneaking suspicion that they will do it anyway?
Deborah Lafave plea bargained her way out of prison (possible 15 years on each count -- mostly likely concurrent) to avoid the trial. She can never teach again. She has to register as a sex offender (predator) in her state. Stay away from children. Etc. But what if the tables had been turned? Deb was Dan and the teen a she? No doubt but that we'd be looking at time. Serious time. And sex offenders do not have a good time of it in prison.
Is it OK if the teenage boy wants it and gets it, but not if the teenage girl does the same: that is, the older party, if male goes down, but if female, slides? From the teenage boy point of view this is terrible that anyone does time. From the teenage girl's point of view ... probably the same? From society's point of view: JUST WHAT IS SOCIETY'S POINT OF VIEW???? Huh? Double standards in the land of equality and gender neutrality? How do feminists justify it? Should anyone have to justify it? Should this be a case by case analysis based on the capacities of the individual at the time (this starts to make better sense to me) or ... how about application for a fornication license for those under the statutory age? A neutral magistrate makes the inquiry and issues a binding opinion, subject to judicial review, if a third party intercedes?
Or we have the Milton Academy issue: teenage girl 15 years old has a "thing" for providing oral sex. Voluntarily and eagerly, by her own admission, she provides the same to the entire (substantially) basketball team and then later on a different date, the hockey team. Those receiving said services that are over 16 themselves are guilty of statutory rape. They will now have to register as a sexual predator and for the next 20 years will have to keep the state informed as to their whereabouts. They really did almost nothing except drop trou. Careers and lives ruined. Expelled from school. The provider? She continues to attend the same establishment. Fair? Consent? Application of the laws? Oh, right, they should have said "no."
Confusing, isn't it? Most sane people agree to a need to prevent teen pregnancies and the evils of young persons being manipulated by older persons -- but let's be honest, this legislation was about older men and younger girls. Not the other way around. When contemplated, in abstract, it should apply equally. But looked at from the side, it is not about an older man abandoning a pregnant younger woman -- or abusing her psyche, it is in Deb's case about an older woman taking advantage of a younger man (boy - she is a perv). And the consequences here would be what ... a pregnant older woman and a school age father unable to take care of the baby financially? MKLeT was and is apparently in love and did time through the equal application of the law, rightly or wrongly.
What strikes me most strongly is the abuse of position: both women were teachers. Hey, didn't Van Halen do a song about "Hot for Teacher?" Society demands higher conduct from its teachers (sorry, teachers). So do I. Apart from that, where do I stand on this? Heck, I don't know. She's a perv, plain and simple, that is true. But if the individual teen was capable of giving a true and reasoned consent ... then I don't know.
However, if you presume that a male teen cannot give consent as to bonking an older woman (not a teacher or doctor or other person charged with a fiduciary duty), you most surely cannot charge ANY teen for murder, conspiracy, RICO, distribution of drugs or just about any serious felony where a state of mind is part of the crime. So when I see kids 12 years old charged as an adult for a crime ... well the double standard bothers me. You?
Thankfully this practice is mostly a thing of the past in the Western world -- although I would not bet too heavily on its demise on other parts.... But this raises the question that all teenage boys have: when and where (soon, please) and how will I ever learn? Equally, I could easily see where a young woman might prefer to enjoy an encounter a young man who actually knows how to open a bra and what the various anatomical bits are.
Which brings us back to the older woman. As we all know statutory rape is a creation of law and not consent. It arbitrarily presumes a failure of consent -- public good, feeble young minds, recklessness ... all of these are serious and valid points. Thing is, there are lots of teenagers (not merely the feeble minded) who are seriously into the giving of consent and with a more than average understanding of the consequences. True, we cannot as a society say, "you can, because you are intelligent and you can't because you are a box of oatmeal" with reference to establishing who can give consent, but what of the large notion of who is taking advantage of who? I mean, take the putative intelligent, 15 year-old boy: a jar of hormones, eager to try anything. Can we say that this individual is too young for sex?
In the bad old days of the industrial revolution and before (basically since the dawn of time) the initiation into the existence and reality of sex was at a very young age -- living 10 to a room in a shanty/teepee/hogan/yurt/[whatever] it is in your face. Frankly, I am glad to be alive after the Victorian era. I am not sure I could stomach the other possibility. But there is no question that the 15 year old of today is FAR FAR more aware of sexuality than were the previous 5 generations and physically and medically far closer to maturity. Emotionally ... back to the intelligence and unfathomable quandry.
So along comes Mary Kay LeTourneau (sp?). She seduced a young boy of polynesian extraction. She went to prison for it. They were in love. She was released from prison, went straight back to him -- a violation of parole. Ultimately, they get married. In love, apparently. A career destroyed, time wasted festering at the pleasure of the state ... for what? Oh, and don't let me forget the baby she bore him while in the joint. Predator? I am sorry, but I can't get there ... but still a profound abuse of trust and fiduciary duty. Fit to teach young children? Hardly.
So we come to Deb Lafave. She is stunningly good looking, even to a 14 year old. Tall, natural pale blond, crystal blue eyes ... and a predator according to the DA. Let's be clear, the student wanted to. You are male going through puberty, you jump at the chance. Mensa or not. This is a pin-up wanting to show you the ropes. Duh. But consent ... in any possible sane meaning of the word the teen gives it. Societally, he did not. She was 11 years his senior and in a position of trust. She was hot for him and she was hot for her. Heck, we teach kids that age to practice safe sex - better abstinence, but if that fails, safety. Why would we teach that if not for the sneaking suspicion that they will do it anyway?
Deborah Lafave plea bargained her way out of prison (possible 15 years on each count -- mostly likely concurrent) to avoid the trial. She can never teach again. She has to register as a sex offender (predator) in her state. Stay away from children. Etc. But what if the tables had been turned? Deb was Dan and the teen a she? No doubt but that we'd be looking at time. Serious time. And sex offenders do not have a good time of it in prison.
Is it OK if the teenage boy wants it and gets it, but not if the teenage girl does the same: that is, the older party, if male goes down, but if female, slides? From the teenage boy point of view this is terrible that anyone does time. From the teenage girl's point of view ... probably the same? From society's point of view: JUST WHAT IS SOCIETY'S POINT OF VIEW???? Huh? Double standards in the land of equality and gender neutrality? How do feminists justify it? Should anyone have to justify it? Should this be a case by case analysis based on the capacities of the individual at the time (this starts to make better sense to me) or ... how about application for a fornication license for those under the statutory age? A neutral magistrate makes the inquiry and issues a binding opinion, subject to judicial review, if a third party intercedes?
Or we have the Milton Academy issue: teenage girl 15 years old has a "thing" for providing oral sex. Voluntarily and eagerly, by her own admission, she provides the same to the entire (substantially) basketball team and then later on a different date, the hockey team. Those receiving said services that are over 16 themselves are guilty of statutory rape. They will now have to register as a sexual predator and for the next 20 years will have to keep the state informed as to their whereabouts. They really did almost nothing except drop trou. Careers and lives ruined. Expelled from school. The provider? She continues to attend the same establishment. Fair? Consent? Application of the laws? Oh, right, they should have said "no."
Confusing, isn't it? Most sane people agree to a need to prevent teen pregnancies and the evils of young persons being manipulated by older persons -- but let's be honest, this legislation was about older men and younger girls. Not the other way around. When contemplated, in abstract, it should apply equally. But looked at from the side, it is not about an older man abandoning a pregnant younger woman -- or abusing her psyche, it is in Deb's case about an older woman taking advantage of a younger man (boy - she is a perv). And the consequences here would be what ... a pregnant older woman and a school age father unable to take care of the baby financially? MKLeT was and is apparently in love and did time through the equal application of the law, rightly or wrongly.
What strikes me most strongly is the abuse of position: both women were teachers. Hey, didn't Van Halen do a song about "Hot for Teacher?" Society demands higher conduct from its teachers (sorry, teachers). So do I. Apart from that, where do I stand on this? Heck, I don't know. She's a perv, plain and simple, that is true. But if the individual teen was capable of giving a true and reasoned consent ... then I don't know.
However, if you presume that a male teen cannot give consent as to bonking an older woman (not a teacher or doctor or other person charged with a fiduciary duty), you most surely cannot charge ANY teen for murder, conspiracy, RICO, distribution of drugs or just about any serious felony where a state of mind is part of the crime. So when I see kids 12 years old charged as an adult for a crime ... well the double standard bothers me. You?
posted by Zaphod at Tuesday, November 22, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home