Pop quiz: Can you guess the sentence for this criminal?
Hey! Let's show some compassion for these sexual predators, people!
Bethyl Shepherd, a 35-year old high school teacher,was
- convicted of having various forms of sexual relations with seven of her male students. In addition…
- The boys ranged were as young as 15.
She got 60 days in jail, with the rest suspended.
I detect in the country a progressive deterioration of rational attitudes toward official punishment, and this case is an unnerving example. The news story makes it clear that everyone, including prosecutors and the parents of the boys, wanted leniency for Shepherd, and no jail time. The judge rejected their misguided pleas, but just barely.
Why so little punishment? Well, this is Nevada, where the attitude toward dubious sexual relationships is uniquely tolerant. Nevertheless, Shepherd is a sexual predator who exploited the trust of students and their parents for her own sexual gratification. This was not one foolish teacher-student crush, as in other cases that have sent teachers like Mary Kay Le Tourneau into prison for long periods. It appears that much of the sympathy for Shepherd stemmed from defense testimony that she was bi-polar and that this affected her judgment (let’s see how far Jerry Sandusky gets with that strategy) and the fact that her life has spun out of control as a result of her arrest, as she has lost her job, her career, her husband, her children, and has had to sell her car.
Regarding her personal travails: Good. Well-deserved. None of these should be the concern of the justice system, however. Presumably all teachers who sexually abuse students have mental or emotional problems to some degree, but there was no proof that she couldn’t help herself. She used bad judgment; why should that lessen her culpability? Why should the personal consequences of outrageous misconduct be any concern to the justice system? It is a “she’s suffered enough” argument; such rationalizations serve to confuse the purpose of the justice system. The goal shouldn’t be to make certain that the total negative consequences to an individual resulting from illegal and unethical conduct aren’t excessive according to some undefined scale. The goal should be to deliver a clear statement about what conduct society views as harmful and intolerable, and to make society’s punishment for such conduct proportional and appropriate for both the damage done to others and the degree to which the conduct violates societies standards, values and norms.
There is no denying that a sentence of 60 days plus probation sends the message that this is “no big deal.” But a teacher using her position of trust to recruit sex partners from a pool of young, immature students is a big deal. The justice system fails society, and potential victims, by suggesting anything else.
The other obvious problem with the sentence is its blatant gender bias, which appears to be all-too-common in such cases. Drew Curtis’s Fark, where I first found this story, captioned the link by saying, in part, “Special ed teacher, who had sex with one student and performed oral sex on six others, to serve only 60 days. Guess the gender…” As they say in Fargo, “You got that right!” If a male teacher committed similar offenses with female students, he’d be pounding rocks for years, if not decades. In another infamous example of teacher-predators escaping serious punishment, Middle School seductress-teacher Debra Lafave received no prison time from a Florida court despite having repeated sexual relations with a 14-year-old student. The pervasive attitude of the community was that Debra was such a drop-dead hottie that the student was only living out the fantasies of most of his classmates and their fathers.
Some consideration in sentencing should focus on special circumstances, but what constitutes relevant mitigating factors should be strictly limited, and they are not. What creeps into the resulting gray area is bias and muddled reasoning, with the result that criminal sentences achieve neither justice nor guidance.
Note: An earlier version of this post stated that Shepherd’s victims were recruited from among her Special Ed classes. This was in error, though I have not been able to confirm that none of the seven boys were in Special Ed. I regret the original misinformation.
Ethics Alarms 
Well, if you look at the end of the article, it says that another worker at the school was given a suspended sentence and probation for a similar offense and they were blaming it (at least partially) on ADD!
What is going on in today’s schools? I see these articles all the time and I know that it wasn’t happening when I was in school (you wouldn’t be able to keep such rumors very secret). Now that I know people who are teachers, I find that this is considered quite a common occurrence. This doesn’t just apply to the female teachers and I don’t know why they think this is acceptable. The wife of a new teacher I know was talking to a group of women when one asked her where her husband taught. When she told the woman, the woman commented how the school had a new teacher and all the girls (her daughter included) were trying to figure out how to sleep with him. I don’t know if the parents knew it, but it turned out that many of the girls at the school were sleeping with quite a few of the attractive, male teachers. The teacher in question doesn’t teach there anymore.
What makes the teachers think this is right (or do they think it IS their right , or perk at least)? Why do the parents and the rest of society excuse it? Did everyone take the teacher-student affair fantasy movies seriously? Are there any adults left in education?
Women and men are different – with sex they have evolved different strategies. Because women get pregnant when they have sex and must expend huge resources during and after the pregnancy, whereas men don’t necessarily, women have evolved to be much more likely to form an emotional significance to the act of sex. Without emotion, you could argue that all protected sex (e.g. between any ages) is fine – it is fun when done right and good exercise.
It is the difference in emotional significance that breaks the symmetry of the genders in cases like this – an underage boy who has sex with an older woman will be much less likely to feel like a victim and be mentally scarred than a girl with the situation reversed,hence the difference in perceived level of justice.
I think you don’t know many younger women. After listening to my wife’s friends talk, I don’t think there is much of a difference anymore. These girls (OK, they are in their 20’s) go out on the weekends, wear fake wedding rings (to attract a one-night stand on purpose), and get mad if a guy they are talking to won’t have sex with them that night.
The factors you are citing are more theoretical. Although what you state may have been true in the past, I think the reasons for it were more cultural and less ‘hardwired’ as you have suggested. If things were as you suggest, there would be a lot fewer of these cases, much fewer teenage pregnancies, and many fewer cases of women dating men with no job, no money, no drive, and no prospects.
Ah! Then I guess the Jerry Sandusky model is the best, since both parties are males and neither party figures to attach emotional significance to the sex act! Similarly, a mother seducing her son is swell, good exercise and all that, but a father seducing his daughter is wrong.
Uhhh..No.
The issue is abuse of power and misuse of authority to create a sexual relationship with a child or immature young adult by an adult in a superior, as opposed to equal, position who is trusted and imbued with special authority and attractiveness because of a non-sexual hierarchy. The issue is exploitation and violation of trust for selfish personal motives at the expense of the adult’s legitimate obligations and duties.
I appreciate the explication of the popular rationalization for an irrational and unsupportable bias, but it’s still self-serving nonsense by those who spout it seriously…and that presumably does not mean you.
Jean,are you implying sex with or between children is fine as long as there is no emotional toll? I heard psychiatry has or will be removing pedophilia from the list of mental disorders as they did with homosexuality presumably to lessen the social stigma. Unlike homosexuality though, pedophilia truly is sick and disgusting.
“Pedophilia truly is sick and disgusting” – but if the DSM is removing pedophilia for reasons of reducing social stigma only, is it then not a genuine mental illness? Although I don’t agree, many in this country and around the world believe that homosexuality is “truly sick and disgusting”. You’re walking a fine line here. I don’t believe that any kind of sexual assault on a pre-pubescent child (which is what a true pedophile is attracted to) is okay, but if someone has those fantasies and never acts on them, what harm is being done? I know our society isn’t prude enough to delude ourselves into thinking that no otherwise “healthy” or “average” adults don’t have strange fetishes or sexual fantasies. As long as no one is harmed, are they also sick and disgusting?
Who knows what fantasies, desires and thoughts “normal” people have? Ethics is about what we do, not what we dream about doing. It becomes sick when the dreams and fantasies control behavior.
“The other obvious problem with the sentence is its blatant gender bias, which appears to be all-too-common in such cases.”
I am echoing what Jean-Baptiste posted, despite the rebukes his post has received. (Shout-out to “interested Blogger:” I’m being real again.) Whatever I say here that is off the mark likely will be in some measure due to my own obliviousness (which, Jack, I apologize in advance, may be annoyingly similar to what you incredulously referred to in another thread, about Joe Paterno’s seeming unawareness – in his ninth decade of life – that men could rape other men.)
I don’t disagree with Jack that the abuses of POWER are “equal” between female and male perpetrators, and that there should be equal punishment for that abuse. But nevertheless I feel uncomfortable about presuming equal punishment for seemingly equal sexual abuses.
I am less sure than Jack and Michael that the problem is blatant bias, that is, a double standard in severity of consequences for female sexual predators in comparison to male ones. Maybe I am in need of some more education; I would never deny the possible need, and typically (but not always) regret instances of foregoing the opportunity. But, I am more sure that the inequality of punishing female offenders less than male offenders stems from a widespread and deeply ingrained perception, accurate or not, that a female’s overall health is enormously more complexly intertwined with, and susceptible to issues stemming from the health of, the female reproductive system. Modern mores by “cougar” females, in my opinion, reflect the females’ defiant denial of their vulnerability; strip away the modern technology and prior mal-socialization, and inside them all are still nothing more than scared little girls.
In short, compared to females, what are males but only and merely combustible, lust-driven and physical stimulation-craving sperm factories? Do I get an “amen” to that?
So what we see that might look like an obvious double standard, may in reality be a reflection of a long- (and painfully) validated practice of proportionality. Mess with young males sexually, and they’ll likely be harmed or warped to some extent for a time, depending on how brutally they were messed with. But mess with females sexually, especially the young and inexperienced ones, even just a little, and you’re messing with hands that may nurse a baby and rock a cradle; from there, the social order spirals toward ever more irreversible wreckage and self-destruction.
Having never personally known (knowingly) any convicted sex predator, I must ask: What in the world kind of a job can one of them realistically expect to be hired into afterwards? Migrant farm worker? Trash collector? Telephone solicitor? Cemetery groundskeeper? What else?
But, I am more sure that the inequality of punishing female offenders less than male offenders stems from a widespread and deeply ingrained perception, accurate or not, that a female’s overall health is enormously more complexly intertwined with, and susceptible to issues stemming from the health of, the female reproductive system.
Are you sure it’s not just the longstanding idea that women are property? “Come on boys, go win yourself some women”
Also, Isn’t that a perfect example of both a double standard and bias?
Modern mores by “cougar” females, in my opinion, reflect the females’ defiant denial of their vulnerability; strip away the modern technology and prior mal-socialization, and inside them all are still nothing more than scared little girls.
Yea. There’s no double standard here. Women who enjoy sex is just evidence that they’re lying about their vulnerability and are “nothing more than scared little girls.”
In short, compared to females, what are males but only and merely combustible, lust-driven and physical stimulation-craving sperm factories? Do I get an “amen” to that?
And you don’t think women are combustible, lust-driven and physical stimulation-craving sperm non-factories? How many women do you know?
So what we see that might look like an obvious double standard, may in reality be a reflection of a long- (and painfully) validated practice of proportionality.
Or it’s that you’re obviously biased, too. There isn’t any validation of the “validated practice of proportionality.” Would you like to talk about how women are worse at math than men now?
Mess with young males sexually, and they’ll likely be harmed or warped to some extent for a time, depending on how brutally they were messed with. But mess with females sexually, especially the young and inexperienced ones, even just a little, and you’re messing with hands that may nurse a baby and rock a cradle; from there, the social order spirals toward ever more irreversible wreckage and self-destruction.
Men have no business raising children!
It’s like stepping into the 50s, when men were men, and the womenfolk were weak and only good for breeding and satisfying the desires of men.
I was wondering if you were going to weigh in on this. Let’s not degrade this to a “I’m more feminist than you” contest.
“Are you sure it’s not just the longstanding idea that women are property? “Come on boys, go win yourself some women”
Well, how sure are you that it is? What makes you sure? Where did you get the suggestion that my discussion of physiological differences is a slam-dunk statement of signature significance that “outs” me as a man who treats, and who encourages treatment of, females as property?? Ohhhh…I think I get you: If a man discusses objectively the physiological differences between sexes, then he is irrefutably and automatically objectifying females – the pig! Conclusion: if the man is objective, he’s a pig. If he’s not objective, he’s a pig. It’s a no-win. Is that it?
Also, Isn’t that a perfect example of both a double standard and bias?”
No; it’s an example of a discussion of a reality – a reality that has been exploited by biased persons who deny that reality to force double standards they prefer, and to deny the enforcement of reasonable standards where they ought to exist. You don’t want to hear my story about overhand chin-ups and my “disqualification” for military parachuting school. (I won’t tell it.)
“Yea. There’s no double standard here. Women who enjoy sex is just evidence that they’re lying about their vulnerability and are “nothing more than scared little girls.” ”
Got your sarcasm. But no, seriously, no double standard there, in what I said. Nothing untrue, either. Where did you get the suggestion that I am in denial about women who enjoy sex?? If anything, I was referring to a mindset that can lead to promiscuous (and unethical) activity, regardless of anyone’s enjoyment of it. “Come on girls! Let’s go score some guys!” For equality’s sake, I could have said more to clarify about scared little boys inside adult males, too. I just didn’t think that was necessary; isn’t what’s happening in our society clear enough?
“And you don’t think women are combustible, lust-driven and physical stimulation-craving sperm non-factories? How many women do you know?”
How well do you know the women you know? Are you sure? My point was about contrasting the relative behavioral simplicity of males, with continued respect for the relative physiological complexity of females and the influence of females’ physiology on their behavior. Sure, women are, or can be, all those male things and more. Sure, males (most of them – almost all) are more than those things; the males are just more THOSE things, and are a lot less of the more things.
“Or it’s that you’re obviously biased, too. There isn’t any validation of the “validated practice of proportionality.” ”
I’m open to being proved guilty of bias – and being shown (finally!) my “obvious” bias – even admitting biases that I know I already have (gonna keep ‘em, too, if I want). I know, I know. At this point, I’m sounding like segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace on the schoolhouse steps: “Biased today. Biased tahmorruh. Biased fuh-EVuh!”) Maybe I should have said “evolved standard (which looks to many like a double standard)” instead of “validated practice.” That probably would have been clearer. Still, the standard, double or not, leads to practices; people are satisfied by the standard and the practices, and get used to them; the practices are continued, and the Ozzie and Harriet Show enjoys a years-long run on TV. The debate over proportionality gets tiring and interest in the issue declines. People forget. Until Marilyn Monroe sings Happy Birthday to President Kennedy.
“Men have no business raising children!
It’s like stepping into the 50s, when men were men, and the womenfolk were weak and only good for breeding and satisfying the desires of men.”
What?? We have stepped into the social quicksand of the early third millennium A.D., where men are beset by cowardice; goaded into narcissism; condemned by the culture even when exemplary, truthful, civil, and not cowardly (see Tim Tebow); self-condemned by way of practicing inculcated cynicism; and ironically most self-righteous about the most despicable acts they commit; while women, though seemingly somewhat less afflicted than men of the psychic maladies, are nevertheless in large numbers not much better than the worst of the men, but they’re still breeding and satisfying desires (theirs and men’s – and more than a few kids’). Onward and forward, from the twenty-tweens, HO!
My apologies for the length of this, but there was just so much wrongness to deal with.
I was wondering if you were going to weigh in on this. Let’s not degrade this to a “I’m more feminist than you” contest.
Feminism has nothing to do with it. I hate that term. I like dealing in reality, whatever that may be.
“Are you sure it’s not just the longstanding idea that women are property? “Come on boys, go win yourself some women”
Well, how sure are you that it is? What makes you sure? Where did you get the suggestion that my discussion of physiological differences is a slam-dunk statement of signature significance that “outs” me as a man who treats, and who encourages treatment of, females as property?? Ohhhh…I think I get you: If a man discusses objectively the physiological differences between sexes, then he is irrefutably and automatically objectifying females – the pig! Conclusion: if the man is objective, he’s a pig. If he’s not objective, he’s a pig. It’s a no-win. Is that it?
You’re jumping to conclusions. We have a cultural tradition of treating women differently than men. They WERE considered property. They were considered delicate. They can’t do man’s work…whether it’s playing cards, learning science, holding office, or anything else. Along with this was the idea that women don’t have the same urges and desires as men. We know all of this. This is history.
Along with that, you are putting forth the idea that girls can’t handle sex with older men as well as boys can handle sex with older women. Your two arguments are “we’ve learned this over time” and “their brain chemistry is different” (though I don’t know if the latter was offered prior to this post). Go back a few years, and the first argument backs all the historical ideas I mentioned above. People are still using it for all those things, even though we have solid scientific evidence that it’s wrong about science, and socialization to see it was wrong about holding office and playing cards.
It is absolutely reasonable to think that your ideas about the differences in boys and girls when it comes to their ability to handle sex with older men comes from the traditional, incorrect beliefs about the differences between boys and girls.
Also, Isn’t that a perfect example of both a double standard and bias?”
No; it’s an example of a discussion of a reality – a reality that has been exploited by biased persons who deny that reality to force double standards they prefer, and to deny the enforcement of reasonable standards where they ought to exist. You don’t want to hear my story about overhand chin-ups and my “disqualification” for military parachuting school. (I won’t tell it.)
You said that punishment and standards are different based on a perception (possibly incorrect) that there are differences. That’s the definition of bias. You also then gave an example of bias (different standards for different sexes) as bad. Tell me what is different between your example situation and the difference in legal punishment that you didn’t consider bias.
Really, what you’re doing here is trying to confuse to cover that you’re just averring what reality is without any evidence. Either that, or you selectively have no idea what the word bias means.
“Yea. There’s no double standard here. Women who enjoy sex is just evidence that they’re lying about their vulnerability and are “nothing more than scared little girls.” ”
Got your sarcasm. But no, seriously, no double standard there, in what I said. Nothing untrue, either. Where did you get the suggestion that I am in denial about women who enjoy sex?? If anything, I was referring to a mindset that can lead to promiscuous (and unethical) activity, regardless of anyone’s enjoyment of it. “Come on girls! Let’s go score some guys!” For equality’s sake, I could have said more to clarify about scared little boys inside adult males, too. I just didn’t think that was necessary; isn’t what’s happening in our society clear enough?
You just changed the topic from “boys can handle it and girls can’t” to “it’s bad behavior either way”. That’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about “should there be punishment” we’re talking about “should there be uneven punishment”
“And you don’t think women are combustible, lust-driven and physical stimulation-craving sperm non-factories? How many women do you know?”
How well do you know the women you know? Are you sure? My point was about contrasting the relative behavioral simplicity of males, with continued respect for the relative physiological complexity of females and the influence of females’ physiology on their behavior. Sure, women are, or can be, all those male things and more. Sure, males (most of them – almost all) are more than those things; the males are just more THOSE things, and are a lot less of the more things.
I can only technically know what I feel, but I can see that both women and men use the same language to describe what they feel, so there’s no reason to assume it’s different. I trust that women mean what they say. You, in the same situation, don’t trust what women say and assume it’s different.
Again, you suggest that males are more X than females are. You again supply no evidence. You just assume it.
“Or it’s that you’re obviously biased, too. There isn’t any validation of the “validated practice of proportionality.” ”
I’m open to being proved guilty of bias – and being shown (finally!) my “obvious” bias – even admitting biases that I know I already have (gonna keep ‘em, too, if I want). I know, I know. At this point, I’m sounding like segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace on the schoolhouse steps: “Biased today. Biased tahmorruh. Biased fuh-EVuh!”) Maybe I should have said “evolved standard (which looks to many like a double standard)” instead of “validated practice.” That probably would have been clearer. Still, the standard, double or not, leads to practices; people are satisfied by the standard and the practices, and get used to them; the practices are continued, and the Ozzie and Harriet Show enjoys a years-long run on TV. The debate over proportionality gets tiring and interest in the issue declines. People forget. Until Marilyn Monroe sings Happy Birthday to President Kennedy.
We know that what you are basing your beliefs on (history’s creation of standards) has shown to be biased. It has created differences between boys and girls that do not exist. As that’s your only evidence, you have to assume your position is biased. It’s not up to me to prove your position is wrong. It’s up to you to prove that these differences do exist.
“Men have no business raising children!
It’s like stepping into the 50s, when men were men, and the womenfolk were weak and only good for breeding and satisfying the desires of men.”
What?? We have stepped into the social quicksand of the early third millennium A.D., where men are beset by cowardice; goaded into narcissism; condemned by the culture even when exemplary, truthful, civil, and not cowardly (see Tim Tebow); self-condemned by way of practicing inculcated cynicism; and ironically most self-righteous about the most despicable acts they commit; while women, though seemingly somewhat less afflicted than men of the psychic maladies, are nevertheless in large numbers not much better than the worst of the men, but they’re still breeding and satisfying desires (theirs and men’s – and more than a few kids’). Onward and forward, from the twenty-tweens, HO!
So, you mean that their are double standards about men and women that are wrong? And we clearly came to them by cultural trial and era. Honestly, do you not realize that this directly conflicts with your entire point?
It’s probably for the best for both of us that I don’t have the attention span to continue discussion with you here. You seem wonderfully patient. I think it’s clear that you are most thoroughly and civilly thoughtful. I admire your reflection of those qualities in writing. Here I borrow and repackage a Jack Nicholson line from the movie As Good As It Gets: You influence me to want to be better. But I think we have reached a point in our discussion where our respective biases are only leading us unnecessarily to misunderstanding, talking past each other, and frustration.
As surely as sex crime will continue, we’ll have opportunity to post back and forth again about ethics in punishment of such crime. Then we’ll be able to revisit issues like proportionality and double standards related to similarities and differences between the genders. But for today and the foreseeable future, I can’t afford to let my head hurt any longer in focus on what we have been discussing and the “wrongness” each of us is striving to address. I am done with this thread.
No shame there. People think ethics is easy, and that you can just “go with your gut” and never be wrong. They are deluded. These are difficult, difficult issues, and while any of us may be dead certain about a particular conclusion, having our brains hurt while trying to prove it to others reminds us that certitude in ethics is elusive.
I don’t believe we’re talking past each other at all. I’m asking for evidence, and you’re ignoring it, or running away. I started out just like you, assuming girls feel differently than guys. Then I realized there wasn’t any evidence to believe that. I’m open now. If you find some evidence, shoot on over. Until then, only one of us being biased.
Even if, on average, girls felt duifferently than guys, it does not mean that all girls feel the same.
For example, if all girls felt the same, none would be homosexual. But just as some girls are homosexual and others are not, some girls can emotionally handle sex with older men, and some can not. Some girls are willing to share male partners, and some do not tolerate sharing.
…and there’s nothing in that statement that doesn’t apply if the genders are reversed.
Jack – I’m agreeing with you here. And Proam – thanks for the shout-out, but in your attempt at “being real” it seems you are also missing the real issues. Children are our most vulnerable members of society. Period. There should be no gender bias with regard to whether boys are more vulnerable than girls when we are discussing the adults who abuse their positions of power and authority to sexually abuse them. They all need to be punished – severely. And, most disturbing to me personally, we are talking about disabled children here! I am the proud parent of and ardent advocate for a profoundly disabled child. The fact that my child is a girl makes me no less outraged that this particular teacher happened to be a woman abusing boys. She got off without paying an appropriate price for her horrific crimes against children. The most vulnerable category of children! To add further insult to injury, this school hired, then made excuses for, teachers with bi-polar disorder and ADD … and thought them appropriate to teach special needs children. It is a damning indictment in and of itself about the lack of respect and care these children are afforded. This story makes me feel like I want to throw up.
Interested Blogger just made the points I was about to make. He also added the important point of a teacher with mental problems being assigned to “special needs” students… the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Who made the decision to place this woman in a position of such authority with the opportunities for abuse inherent in it? In fact, why was she employed as a teacher in the first place? The decision of this court was reprehensible and that of the school system incomprehensible.
No, i.B., I am not missing and did not miss the real issues you discussed. I chose not to discuss those because they are (or should be) “no-brainers;” they should not be discussed with unbridled passion, nor should they be underappreciated or overlooked, let alone ignored. I chose to discuss the issue of proportionality with regard to punishing sex crimes – a real issue that is perhaps not obvious to some interested persons, and an issue that deserves thoughtful consideration of appropriate degrees of severity. I was not ignoring other issues while I discussed the one; I simply was not reflecting everything I was thinking about.
For example: I do not agree on “equally severe” punishment for a woman who allowed herself to be penetrated by a boy, and for a man who indulged himself by penetrating a boy. In both cases, the abuse of power is equally heinous and deserving of equally severe punishment. But in my view the abuses of the boys were not equal, and if the punishment of the perpetrators was equal for those specific abuses, I am contending that an ethical (justice) issue of (dis)proportionality existed.
For example: I do not agree on “equally severe” punishment for a woman who allowed herself to be penetrated by a boy, and for a man who indulged himself by penetrating a boy.
“allowed herself to be penetrated”? She’s not the victim here. What if the man “allowed himself to be penetrated” by the boy or “allowed himself to penetrate” the boy?
You’re begging the question by using that kind of language.
“What if the man “allowed himself to be penetrated” by the boy or “allowed himself to penetrate” the boy? You’re begging the question by using that kind of language.”
Not sure I’m understanding your question. One “allowing oneself to penetrate” another is not a victimization of the allow-er, necessarily, but it could be stated that way sarcastically, to describe rape. “Allowing oneself to be penetrated by” another…are you aiming for some consistency in relating victims to perpetrators that I have muddled? Or are you getting me to say that I think a grown man who allows himself to a boy is relatively (proportionally) not the same abuse as a boy who allows himself to a man?
The implication you made was the boy wanted it, and the teacher went along with it. I was pointing out that you were couching the female in passive terms (allowed something to be done) while the male actively performed the action.
Sure, the boy probably wanted sex with his hot female teacher. teenage girls want sex with their hot male teachers too. Predators are good at getting their prey into situations that suit them. It’s not like it’s particularly hard to get a physical response from a teenage boy (or girl).
The power imbalance is the same, and the differences you suggest are not supported by anything other than folklore and psuedo science. It’s “Not with my daughter!” syndrome.
“The power imbalance is the same,…”
I agree with you there.
“…and the differences you suggest are not supported by anything other than folklore and psuedo science.”
I disagree with you there.
“It’s “Not with my daughter!” syndrome.”
I don’t understand what you mean there. Still, I appreciate all your points that I do understand.
If I was a gynecologist, I would probably feel slightly offended at your evident overlooking of my work on those differences that you say I “suggest” but are not supported. The post-Roe v. Wade liberties that involve choice for mental health reasons confirms yet more consideration of those very real differences between genders. I can only speak as one male, but I don’t have a gender-specialized physician tracking my brain chemistry and mental state versus my sperm count. Males. Are. Simple. (relatively)
I am smiling, full uppers, molar-to-molar and gums showing above long teeth. How come I just KNEW that you would eventually get around to mentioning “pseudo-science?”
I apologize sincerely for any smugness; I won’t deny that may be where part of my head is, particularly in this post; I know that of all people, I am the least entitled to be smug about anything, anytime. The opportunities to read and comment in Jack’s blog are more valuable to me than I can express. I am grateful beyond words for “differences,” and for their discussion here.
There are no differences as far as the teacher is concerned. The teacher is abusing his or her position. The teacher is creating a conflict of interest. The teacher is interfering with the normal development of peer relationships. The teacher is risking psychological damage to the student.
There are 14 year-olds more mature than 18-year-olds, and young women who could would handle a teacher seduction easily while young men who would be traumatized. The fact is that a teacher doing this is placing a student at risk, and it shouldn’t happen. As with vertical sexual harassment, there are also resulting consequences that can effect the rest of the class, or even the school. The lesson can be acquired that this is appropriate or normal conduct by superiors, making male and female students more vulnerable to quid pro quo discrimination in the workplace.
“It’s not so bad” defenses are really counter productive with this issue; it opens the door for a Mary Kay LeTourneau, who robbed a student of his childhood. He never got to have a normal sexual relationship with someone his own age, and however he has been conditioned to feel about his status now, that was a crime. His age is the least of it.
“…and the differences you suggest are not supported by anything other than folklore and psuedo science.”
I disagree with you there.
Got any evidence that’s not folklore or psuedo science? I’d love to see it.
If I was a gynecologist, I would probably feel slightly offended at your evident overlooking of my work on those differences that you say I “suggest” but are not supported.
So, gynecologists work on how sex affects the mental state of women? And they have found that it affects them more negatively than men? Evidence please.
The post-Roe v. Wade liberties that involve choice for mental health reasons confirms yet more consideration of those very real differences between genders.
Yes, there are mental health issues involved with terminating a pregnancy, and there are real differences between genders, but that in no way supports your contention of differences in how boys and girls deal with sex. That there are some differences does not mean there are differences here or that they are as you suggest.
I can only speak as one male, but I don’t have a gender-specialized physician tracking my brain chemistry and mental state versus my sperm count. Males. Are. Simple. (relatively)
Why does it matter if you are male or female to say that?
Anyway, while male hormones tend to fluctuate less than female hormones, changes in hormone levels do affect male conduct. Of course, you haven’t given one shred of evidence that the different hormone levels or fluctuations cause girls to be hurt by sex more than boys.
I am smiling, full uppers, molar-to-molar and gums showing above long teeth. How come I just KNEW that you would eventually get around to mentioning “pseudo-science?”
Because I use accurate terms?
I apologize sincerely for any smugness; I won’t deny that may be where part of my head is, particularly in this post; I know that of all people, I am the least entitled to be smug about anything, anytime.
I don’t see you being smug, just wrong, and unable to back it up. Your reasoning for why girls are X and boys are Y is that there are differences between girls and boys. I grant that. Where is the evidence that girls are X? Where is the evidence that boys are Y? (No pun was intended there.)
Although I do not agree with the registry for no one, I have got to speak my mind on this one!
It is a shame that we have hundreds of thousands of men and young boys sitting in prisons and on the registry for “crimes” such as urinating in bushes, receiving pleasure from their wives in the park, teen age behaviors with underage girls, taking pictures of their children in the bath tub!
Something HAS to give with our injustice system!
In the state of Indiana, if you use an emotional disorder as defense, then that automatically makes a person convicted of a sex crime, a Sexually Violent Predator! Registerable for life!
Ask me, my 17 year old son, now 24, is sitting in a prison for finding out a girl he was allowed to date (by her parents) was only 14. When he broke up with her, she screamed rape!
Since he has Asperger’s syndrome, the judge used that to define him as an SVP and he is required to register for life!
Tell me where the fairness is????????????
There should not be a double standard in these cases, but to wish the ruination of human life no matter how deserving you think they are is unethical, which makes me want to sound the alarm on this blog.
The “justice” system was once created with the rehabilitation of those who committed crimes in mind. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that ostracizing and humiliating those who have served their sentences have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation. What that means is what you are cheering about in your blog actually makes this person MORE likely to commit MORE crimes.
There is nothing unethical about believing bad conduct should have appropriate consequences. Does she deserve to keep teaching? No. She has proven herself untrustworthy. Has she shown herself undeserving of a husband? Absolutely. She was repeatedly unfaithful, and in a particularly humiliating way. Is it better that major misconduct have no negative consequences for those responsible, or that serious consequences result? Easy answer, I think.
I take no glee in her plight. She still deserves it, and that’s all I said.
Meanwhile, nothing in the post suggests that I support ostracizing or humiliating those who have served their sentences. If you check out other posts on THAT topic, you will find that I do not. Where you get the idea that there was any cheering from me regarding a tragedy like this is a mystery. Child predators deserve the personal consequences of their actions. THAT’s not “rocket science.”
I really love it when commenters make up things I neither wrote nor believe and then argue against them. No, that was sarcasm. It’s really obnoxious. Don’t do it again.
How would you have rehabilitated Adolf Eichmann or Osama bin Laden?
The justice system was created with retribution in mind. Rehabilitation came along as an objective long,long after that.
Just to clarify, she was a Special Ed teacher, but these students were not Special Ed students, or students of hers, but rather students who attended the regular program at her school.
I didn’t see that. Thanks. That’s useful, and I’ll change the post accordingly. Not that it mitigates her offense much, but a little? Sure.
why does it mitigate her offense? if it is because the mental state of the boys is now different then do you think there should be an asymmetry in the punishments by gender? unless you are claiming that male and female mental states and attitudes to sex are equal…
why does it mitigate her offense? if it is because the mental state of the boys is now different then do you think there should be an asymmetry in the punishments by gender? unless you are claiming that male and female mental states and attitudes to sex are equal…
I was going to take you to task for the belief that girls are delicate little flowers with pure thoughts and boys are conquering sex machines, but then I saw Jack had already done that…in response to your previous post:
I appreciate the explication of the popular rationalization for an irrational and unsupportable bias, but it’s still self-serving nonsense by those who spout it seriously…and that presumably does not mean you.
i do not think gender attitudes are extremely different to sex, but all the evidence i’ve seen points to there being some difference. claiming i have “the belief that girls are delicate little flowers with pure thoughts and boys are conquering sex machines” just shows your arguing skills are limited to distorting opposing views ad absurdum.
don’t be so entrenched in your beliefs without looking for evidence. i am reminded of tim minchin’s brilliant storm which contains the line Does the idea that there might be truth frighten you? Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you? Frighten you? Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural so blow your hippy noodle that you would rather just stand in the fog of your inability to Google?
Your words:
women have evolved to be much more likely to form an emotional significance to the act of sex. Without emotion, you could argue that all protected sex (e.g. between any ages) is fine – it is fun when done right and good exercise.
It is the difference in emotional significance that breaks the symmetry of the genders in cases like this – an underage boy who has sex with an older woman will be much less likely to feel like a victim and be mentally scarred than a girl with the situation reversed,hence the difference in perceived level of justice.
and
if it is because the mental state of the boys is now different then do you think there should be an asymmetry in the punishments by gender? unless you are claiming that male and female mental states and attitudes to sex are equal…
It wasn’t reducto ad absurdum. Sure there are differences between the sexes, but there is no evidence that boys can handle it better than girls. I think you need to take your own advice here: “don’t be so entrenched in your beliefs without looking for evidence”
and is there evidence that mentally normal children can handle it better than special needs kids?
my point was that the reasoning jack presumably used to say that it not being special needs kids should mitigate her offence is also the same reasoning he admonished me for when i said that gender differences should also mitigate the offence. which he presumably sees and has been smart enough not to respond. you on the other hand…
There are a many different types of special needs, but the assumption is that these aren’t just learning disabled kids: Autistic kids that have trouble processing new information, mentally retarded kids that have elementary school minds in the bodies of teenagers, ED kids that are constantly acting out.
There is most definitely evidence that it is easier to coerce special needs kids than “normal” kids. They are more dependent on specialized care and more vulnerable to adults in positions of trust. They are less likely to be able to understand their bodies and feelings, and less likely to be able to express their feelings…or be believed by adults.
I don’t think that’s what tgt was implying, and I know it isn’t what I was saying. The reason preying on special needs kids is worse is not because they will suffer more damage than more typical children,but that they are (probably) more vulnerable—more trusting, not as cognitively sophisticated, less able to defend themselves or articulate threats to parents. It is worse to prey on a 12-year old than a 16 year old, and worse yet to prey on a six-year old. Are some 12-year-olds more mature than some 16-year-olds? Sure.
And it is worse to prey on a 12-year old mildly autistic child with an IQ of 95 than a child of the same age without and cognitive problems and with an !Q of 135. Seems pretty obvious to me. No?..
I think what you’re saying is abundantly obvious, Jack. My disabled 13-year-old has the IQ level and maturity of a 5-year-old. This child may physically LOOK like a teenager, but this child is certainly FAR more vulnerable than any other typically-developing non-special-needs teenager. So while I agree that ALL child predators should be judged most harshly and sentenced most severely, I do think that some cases are far more onerous than others. In a hypothetical case where an intellectually mature 17-year-old boy is a willing participant in a sexual relationship with a 20-something-year-old female teacher, that teacher is still guilty of having abused the child, is still a predator, and has gravely abused her position of authority. If the 17-year-old is, for example, cognatively disabled (mentally retarded) it is far, far more onerous, because the child is more like an elementary school-aged child. I think most would agree that this kind of sexual relationship – akin to pedophelia – is about as onerous as it gets.
You and Jack both said it much better than I did.
You also brought up a good point. There are really two kinds of pedophilia: attraction to undeveloped bodies and attraction to undeveloped minds. The first I see as a sickness, the second as predatory. Is it really that bad if an adult likes sleeping with another adult who physically developed like a 12 year old? Compare that to if they were sleeping with another adult who is mentally developed like a 12 year old.
Of course, in reality, most people with bodies physically developed to that of a 12 year old are also mentally developed like a 12 year old…because they’re 12.
The fact is that the woman has a life sentence by having to register for the rest of her life as a sex offender. I don’t see anything about her conviction as being light. Yes, a man in the same boat would get more time in prison or jail, but the life sentence of registering and all that is tacked onto it now and in the future. Rest assured she has no rosy picnic for a future.
I’m amazed that any citizen opts to be a coach or teacher these days. Hell all it takes is one complaint (true or not) and you’re damned. Any sex related charges make you guilty until proven innocent. Ever try and disprove a negative? Right, it can’t be done! Times have changed. Back in the day teen boys would have received a slap on the back for getting lucky with an older woman. Google,” Ben Franklin’s advice to a young man” back then for boys it was considered sex education. For girls it was called marriage at that age! Today it’s called sexual assault. Odd how we live in a time that information is so readily available to children about sex via the internet (sadly in the form of porn) and we wonder why these teens are acting out sexually? A 15 or 16 year old boy having sex with a 35 year teacher? Hmmm. Lets break that down a little. Would it be better for those boys to have sex with 14 to 16 year old girls and get them pregnant and become young parents, infected with an STD or make the girls have abortions? That’s a good option right!
A clueless comment on so many levels.
1. Registered sex offenders who choose to prey on children can still do it. It’s no picnic, but it’s hardly hard time.
2. Since the legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution, your comments about disproving a negative are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
3. You do not comprehend concepts like consent, abuse of power, coercion, trust and professionalism. rendering your perspective ridiculous and antediluvian at best.
4. You appear to think it’s fine for a teacher to use students as her (or his) own private harem. If potential sex offenders had to register, you would be a prime candidate.
Sadly, Jack, this rule is not always followed in sex crimes cases.
Look up “Grant Snowden”, “Gerald Amirault”, “Timothy Cole”, “McMartin preschool”, “Duke University”.
Wait a minute. The Duke defendants were never tried. The cases were dropped. What are you talking about here? I’m talking about convictions. You’re talking about the stigma of arrest. Yes, that’s true–that’s true with sex crimes and non-sex crimes.
Of the cases that went to trial, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt was the standard of guilt. Juries make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean that sex crime defendants are per se railroaded, which is what I was reading.
Yes, it was her being a teacher that made it an offense. I believe they were all of “legal” age in Nevada. From what I have read, none of them were “cognitively” challenged as the first poster stated. Just stupid teenage boys.
All teenagers are cognitively challenged. That’s the point.
Yes, Mr. Marshall, you have several times come down on the side of the angels in condemning continued punishment of registrants once the sentence was served, and as an advocate for the reform of a public and punitive registry, residency restrictions, and all of the other life-ending laws that are part of the sex offender industry, I thank you and appreciate it. I must, however, take issue with your point 2 in your reply to Robert. With all offenses not sexual, it is true that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and disproving a negative is irrelevant. With the accusation of a sexual offense, especially by a child or teen, those time honored concepts do not exist. Charges are filed, pleas are coerced, trials are held, and guilty convictions are had based on nothing more than a child or teen pointing a finger and saying, “He touched me.” The accused is indeed in the position of having to prove innocence since guilt is assumed. Child psychologists have said long enough and often enough that children don’t lie about such things that people believe it. Children do lie, coerced by a vindictive parent or one wanting full custody. Teens lie out of anger and a desire for revenge. Many later recant, but the damage is done, and the recanting does not by any means negate the verdict. A young man has been in a Texas prison many years because he refused to say he did what he did not. His cousin/accuser went public years ago in saying she lied, and she has said it often to everyone who would listen; a new trial was denied time after time, and he is still in prison.
If you steal or kill, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are accused of even touching a child, you are guilty, and nothing can prove you innocent.
Shelly: I don’t know what your experience is, but you are talking about human emotion, not the law.The law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt–that testimony from kids is hard to assess is also beyond question. Yes, sympathies run with the children so strongly that it is a challenge. The same applies to women who accuse men of rape. That’s a huge problem, and injustices result. But you overstate it.
And again, this has nothing to do with the case we are discussing. There were multiple, unrelated complainants, and she admitted the offense…in fact, never denied it.
Yes, I know that; my every intention was to make it clear that I was not responding to the case in question or the article but only to one point of your response to Robert with a brief allusion to your comment to oncefallen.
If you look back at the initial news articles from April, she did say that she was forced into the activity…