"Come on! What 14-year old wouldn't enjoy being forced to submit to sodomy from her?"
I am posting this as my contribution to the epic argument on the post about Nevada’s wrist slap to the teacher who had various kinds of sex with multiple students. The gist of the dispute is whether it is appropriate to give disparate (harsher) punishment to male teachers who take advantage of female students than is given to their female counterparts in the sexual predator world, because “boys are different,” and are more likely to enjoy the sexual awakening without long-term adverse affects.
Yesterday’s sexual predator story (for there is indeed at least one every day, it seems) came from St. George, Utah, where a female fitness coach was sentenced after pleading guilty to two counts of forcible sexual abuse as part of a plea deal in which prosecutors agreed to dismiss three additional counts of forcible sexual abuse and five counts of forcible sodomy….of a 14-year-old boy she was supposed to be training.
The boy, now 16, says that he is treated completely differently in school now because of his “experience.” Was he lucky to be made the sex toy of a hot adult fitness coach? It doesn’t sound like he thinks so. Nonetheless, the woman told the boy, “Well, you learned a whole lot, didn’t you?’ in a secretly taped conversation in which she tried to talk him out of helping prosecutors.
You see? The attitude being advocated in the comments encourages and rationalizes the actions of female predators.
Ethics Alarms 
Yes, I think it’s quite time to put an end to the ‘that lucky dog’ dismissals of abuse of boys.
I am sick of the double standard. A boy is not a man.I don’t care how many westerns with 12 year old boys being taken to the whore house and how many men gaffaw at it. I don’t care about the arguments that boys don’t suffer emotionally by it as girls do. If it was MY boy she preyed on she’d better watch her back.
One critic of this double standard was California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk. In his dissent in Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County , 25 Cal.3d 608 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1979), a California Supreme Court decision upholding, against state and federal constitutional challenges, a statutory rape law that effectively punished underage boys for having consensual sex with underage girls, while exempting from punishment underage girls who had consensual sex with underage boys. “I dissent. I cannot subscribe to the implied premise of the majority that the female of the human species is weak, inferior, and in need of paternalistic protection from the state. That concept is an anachronism in a society in which females have achieved remarkable progress toward equality. The tutelary syndrome of Victorian days has yielded to a new era in which women are contributing their talents in every field of endeavor — as prime ministers, governors, legislators, judges, corporate executives, lawyers, scientists, medical doctors, police officers, and professional athletes.” Michael M. , 25 Cal.3d at 615 (J. Mosk, dissenting) (emphases added) “The statute makes no attempt to define culpability in terms of sexual intercourse that creates a risk of pregnancy. It does not permit a defense that the couple used contraceptives or employed other pregnancy prevention techniques, even in cases in which the method of contraception is extremely effective.3 Nor does the statute make any exception for cases in which either the male or female is sterile, or emission did not occur; yet emission is not a prerequisite to conviction, for “Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.” (Pen. Code, § 263; see, e.g., People v. Howard (1904) 143 Cal. 316, 317 [76 P. 1116].) Finally, since all girls under the age of 18 fall within its scope, the statute punishes intercourse with a substantial number for whom, as noted above, conception is a sheer impossibility simply because of physiological immaturity.” id. at 620 “Of course she runs greater risks if adequate contraceptive measures are not taken; but they are the consequences rather than the causes of her act, and are therefore wholly irrelevant to weighing her moral blame in committing the act in the first place. In our system of justice, offenders are not deemed less culpable merely because they may suffer additional punishment from sources outside the legal system. For example, an outwardly respectable person who engages in illicit drug activity is not rendered less blameworthy when his arrest and conviction for that conduct also result in social ostracism and loss of professional status.” id. at 622 “As seen by the public in actual operation, section 261.5 assumes that when the minor female “volitionally” decides to be sexually active, she does not really know what she is doing. Because she is a woman she is deemed inherently less capable of knowing the facts, of controlling her emotions, of weighing the risks and benefits, and of making intelligent choices — in short, she is less responsible for her actions — than her male counterpart. As it presently reads, the California statutory rape law thus reflects a belief that the minor female is in need of special protection not only against the male but also against herself, against her “voluntary” but presumptively imprudent decisions in matters of sex.
Such notions are obviously vestiges of a bygone era, remnants of the exploded myth of intrinsic male superiority. They are the product of conventional sex-stereotypical thinking, and revive an outmoded patriarchial view of “the woman’s role.” Certainly it is permissible for the Legislature to enact statutes for the protection of the moral character of minors of both sexes, and in particular to prevent their sexual exploitation by persons older and more mature than they; but absent a compelling reason for doing so, equal protection forbids the law to foster one standard of socially acceptable conduct for males and another ” id. at 624
“The attitude being advocated in the comments [in Jack’s earlier post about the Nevada case] encourages and rationalizes the actions of female predators.”
In all honesty, in my comments on the Nevada case, I did not intend even so much as to vaguely suggest encouragement or rationalization for the actions of female predators. I have no issue with equal punishment for the abuse of power that characterizes the actions of predators of both sexes. Proportionality of punishment according to physical harm done to victims, in addition to and separate from punishment for the power abuses, was my intended focus, and is my focus again here.
After searching for more details about the Andersen case, I could not find more than were in the article Jack linked to. My understanding of the law is that “sodomy” is inclusive of a variety of types of penetration. Although it is not clear to me, I infer from the Andersen case that the female perpetrator is either a “she-male,” or allegedly employed (forcibly, according to definition under law) some kind of “toy” to penetrate the victim. I could be wrong, but I understand that when a pair of persons engages in intercourse, generally a person being penetrated is at higher risk of consequent physical harm than a person who performs penetration but receives none. Diseases being communicable, of course, I recognize possible exceptions.
Following from that understanding, I still think that because of the differences in male and female reproductive systems, the risks of physical harm to a young female who is penetrated sexually are higher than the risks of physical harm to a young male who is not penetrated but who penetrates a partner. Therefore I still think that (for both actual physical harm inflicted and for placing the victim in a state of endangerment of such harm), relatively harsher punishment is due for a perpetrator who penetrates a female victim than for a perpetrator who does not penetrate (but instead is penetrated by) a male victim. I don’t see my position as encouraging and rationalizing the actions of predators. I see it as advocating equality of justice by way of punishment proportional to the physical harm inflicted.
The question is not that the child learned “something”, but what that something was. Love is not lust, sex is not a commodity and children are not objects of adult exploitation.
If these attitudes gain widespread acceptance, a remake of Spotlight would cast the Boston Globe as the villain, while the Catholic Church would be portrayed as a hero for standing up for priests who wanted altar boy love.