|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:26 AM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The oddest part of all this is that they can't leave the state for a honeymoon because she is still on probation. Our justice system is a joke (massively contradictory and confused) in so many ways. Here she marries her alleged victim (I could only dream that something like that would happen to me at that age) and they don't throw out the whole stupid conviction. If you have any doubts about the sexual awareness of your average 12 yo or 13 yo or 14 yo just check out an original tracy lordes porn video. She was 14 at the time and certainly didnt start at 14 and was fully into it and fully aware of being into it. And I mean INTO IT. And since it has been "revealed" that 50% of 13 yo's are having oral sex, we should drop all the silly pretense of "protecting" our kids from the world and the reality of sex because it is immoral. Homo Sapiens in their current form have been around for about 150K years and until just recently, lived on average to the ripe old age of say 18. So they had to get a whole lotta living and learning and sex and babies squeezed into a very short lifetime which means they had to start making babies as soon as the girls began to ovulate. Just like the stoneage tribes in africa, asia and south america still do. The only thing a 12 year old girl today will have trouble figuring out is calculus (not something that comes naturally) or her latest cell phone, but as for sex, birds do it, cows do it, and yes, so have 12 year olds for the last 150,000 years. The only reason we restrict it, hate to say it, is that as a society we need production, we need people smart enough to make really complicated things. So if we let kids run around having sex willy nilly then we've got 12 year olds raising kids and not in school learning how to cure cancer, build buildings, mine coal, and solve math problems which put spacecraft into orbit around jupiter. And that, my judeo-christian brothers and sisters is why we don't want kids having sex. We dont really care about their feelings otherwise we wouldnt have had them in sweatshops in pakistan and we wouldnt push them into tennis class at the age of 5 and we would protest like hell for the billion or so kids worldwide who are squatting in rice paddies and other equivalently horrible work starting at the age of 5. The ancients figured out very quickly that if we wanted to live indoors (it could get pretty cold back then with all that ice age snow around) we needed to set aside carnal, earthly pleasures long enough to learn out how to build a house or make a brick out of mud. They conjured up all kinds of silly, mystical reasons for it: "God said it", or whatever, but that was the upshot. Dont get crazy with sex, drugs and rock n roll until you've learned to produce. And certainly dont be a homo because then you arent making kids who we need to produce stuff when we get old since the industrial revolution hasnt been invented yet.
So let's stop being weird about sex or at least tell the truth about.
And let's stop hounding this woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 08:44 AM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
You are making a couple of different points. Your 'anthropology' perspective is largely correct as far as it goes, in that children became sexually active at puberty (or indeed even before), and that the Judeo-Christian tradition has done a great deal to suppress and control sexual activity. You hint that sexual mores are linked to economic needs, life-span and population pressure, and I think this is undeniably so. This is the extent to which sexuality is socially constructed.
However, you have to live in the society in which you find yourself - we no longer die at 18, and we no longer have sex at age 12, and the fact that Ice Age Europeans did is not a justification. You wouldn't want to go back to the Ice Age level of technology, and you can't pick and choose. Anthropology is not a pedophile's charter.
In addition, it is important not to take that adolescent crush you had on your math teacher too seriously. I think there is a genuine issue of consent when the age gap is so large. Two 12-year-olds having sex is one thing, a 12-year-old and a 30-year-old having sex is quite another. We are entitled to ask why the adult wants to have sex with someone so young. There are inevitably issues of manipulation and coercion, as the adult has so much more experience of life, not to mention the power derived from legal status, job status, money, etc.
The fact that a 14-year-old girl made a porn film is not evidence for anything, except perhaps the greed and cynicism of some people in the porn industry.
The reason this news story is relevant to Men's Activism is because of the issue of double standards in public life, of anti-male bias in the law. If a male teacher had had sex with a 12-year-old girl, he would be lucky if he got as far as the courtroom, even if she did 'dream that something like that would happen'. The newspapers would call it rape, and he would have no sympathy from anyone. When a female teacher does it, however, everyone talks about them 'having an affair', or 'becoming intimate'. There have been cases of male teachers marrying female pupils, but society still calls him a pervert. We want equal treatment for men and women.
"Never tolerate psychotic behaviour no matter how good she is in bed." Thomas Ellis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:52 AM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
5 words - Gender Equality Before The Law.
Consider what would happen to any 34 year old teacher having sex with a 12-year old female student. Or a 12 year old male student, for that matter.
We need one law for both sexes, not special laws for one sex.
tom p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:43 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone notice how the "Entertainment" news shows (like ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT) are covering this?
I remember how they depicted Joey Buttafuaco (or how ever you spell his name) some years ago. He was depicted as a monster and a pervert. (complete with "evil" music in the background)
He was in NO WAY depicted with sympathy or "understanding" and "tolerance".
But now, shows like "EXTRA" and "ENTERTAIMENT TONIGHT" are just GUSHING over Letoureau, with comments like "beautiful bride" and such.
This all goes to show what most of us already know. If a man marries his female rape-victim he is a monster.
But when a woman marries her MALE rape-victim she is "sexualy adventureous" and other such euphimisms.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:54 AM May 25th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
>The only thing more amazing is that I haven't heard them vilify her ex-husband and blame all this on him... yet!
Give them time. Although CourTV's write up of this matter bends over backwards to paint him as a cheating jerk and her as the victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:32 PM May 25th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
>By the way, do you know if she's paying child support to the ex-husband? I wonder how the divorce went on this matter. Being a "man", the ex-husband probably decided to handle the child support on his own and cut her loose totally. What a shame if that's the case.
No idea about the support or visitation arrangement.
Steve (MKL's ex) probably decided that the money just wasn't there as she lost her teaching credentials and her new husband spent most of his teens as a drug-using drunken loser-he earned his GED only earlier this year, AT AGE 22. Real earning potential there!
Another slap to Steve was being dumped for that guy, I would think.
Do they even have custody of their own kids? I understand Villi's grandmother had custody at least during the incarceration.
I would love to see her in jail again for non-payment of child support.
We all would, Dude. But don't hold your breath for that. Any state's attorney with the guts to file such charges would get raked over the coals by the media for "dumping on a poor woman who has been through a lot already." Most of which she brought on herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:40 PM May 25th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
Which is interesting because if you've ever noticed most female woes ARE brought on by themselves.
(but then they always have the option of blameing men)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:43 AM May 27th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
>>Steve (MKL's ex) probably decided that the money just wasn't there as she lost her teaching credentials
>That never stopped a court when the gender circumstances were reversed. Remember, child support continues to accrue while a man is in jail. Her child support obligation should be based on her earning ability based on past experience and then she should be accessed imputed income just like us men are. Then she goes to jail if she doesn't come up with the money... regardless of her circumstances.
Maybe so. As Steve is going by a different last name and living in a different state now, I sense that he may be washing his hands of this marriage. Child support from her would clearly represent a link that he is apparently trying to sever.
>I say her ex let her off way too easy, which he never should have done based on the circumstances.
OTOH, if the money is not there, Big Brother cannot make it magically appear. In this sense, Steve Letorneau is demonstrating more sense than the child support collection bureaucracy. Besides, he left her with an uneducated loser who has had brushes with the law and a passion for controlled substances. Remember, she is a cheater. I wouldn't bet the rent money on this marriage lasting.
>By the way, I heard that she didn't lose her teaching credentials, just her ability to teach children. If she's not working now, it's by choice.
I stand corrected on this point. Court TV's write up of this affair notes that she planned to do GED instruction and other adult education, in the unlikely event that any organization would hire a sex offender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by FleetingThoughts on 04:30 PM June 1st, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I was hearing about this on the radio, and it seems that when a woman has sex with a younger man, it's not considered very serious. (people may think she's a little crazy but not a dangerous criminal) When a man has sex with a girl, it's consided criminal and he's declared a dangerous sex offender....
I also looked up some other details on the internet, before posting my comments here on the Mens Activism Forums. I found that this is FAR from the first time this sort of thing has happened... so the "men .vs. women double standard" and "what constitutes rape" questions have been around before. After reading a bit, here are my thoughts:
YES- there IS a double standard, and always WILL be- despite attempts of the legal system and indignant social quibblers who pretend otherwise. You can't ignore biology, with the psychology and instinct that's hard-wired into every human being on the planet.
Regardless of any notions of equality, WOMEN CONTROL SEX. That's it. Can't deny it. Men throughout history may have wished otherwise, but that's the way it is. I’m not trying to be biased, sexist, argumentative, shocking or offensive, just "straight up" if you’ll excuse the pun.
Women want sex. Men want sex.
It goes both ways-- but Women CONTROL sex.
The "stereotype" is: Men want sex- all the time- anywhere they can get it- with any good looking woman who will LET him. Conversely: Woman want sex too, BUT with commitment/love/marriage/safety/and support. (strings attached), and her stereotype is to fall in LOVE with that ONE ‘special’ guy, before she LETs him have sex.
So you get this confusing world out there with hundreds of men ready for sex at the drop of a hat (or panties), but women are being selective, and want sex just with ONE guy, but the best prospect she can get to commit.
All of a sudden, we are looking at basic laws of supply and demand as they apply to biology, emotion, instinct, and genetics.
At any given moment, there are more Men willing to have sex than Women willing to have sex. Check any bar for 5 minutes. I could say that men want more sex than women, but wait till you’re married.
(...and we won’t get into supply chains and economics of the oldest profession)
This "imbalance of trade" means that she who has the highly valued but limited resource -- controls the GAME.
As I said: women control sex.
So as the gender in control, when a Woman WANTS sex, she can always have sex & she makes the decisions.
This is why guys will go to some ridiculously extreme measures to convince a girl that he is a good prospect. Guys will fight over girls, to show who is the better protector. Guys will buy flashy cars, clothes, and jewels to show their ‘provider potential’. Taking a girl out for dinner is a blatant ploy to say "I can keep you and the kids fed… can we have sex now?" Men will even go so far as to claim dis-interest in ANY other woman in the world, because they have found their ONE and only true love… "I do"… women are in control man.
This is NOT to say that only Women have any say on sex. I'm NOT about to suggest THAT
(let alone on a web site for MEN'S Activism)
There ARE however, several twists and turns in this puzzle of human sexual control...
For instance, in many (if not most) cultures, the woman plays more of a subtle/passive role in chosing a partner/mate.
Many women will not ask a guy out on a date - but wait for a guy to ask her. This is an element that the woman does have significant "influence" over, but does not exactly "control".
If you look at many of the social norms for starting a man/woman relationship... SHE tends to do whatever she thinks will mak her attractive, but then wait for a MAN to make the first move. This is such an accepted thing in society that we seldom even think about it - yet it's a is a curious and often puzzeling twist on shared control. It has a quirky effect of making BOTH sexes think that the OTHER gende has much of the control. (I dont know WHO set this up) But men think that they're in a position where they have to do the asking, only to get "shot down in flames" much of the time, when HE was interested in a girl who told him no. (sometimes she may have been interested, but decided to tell him NO, to establish her control of the situation, or "make him work for it" to see how determined he was) From the woman's position, She may think that only the GUYS are expected to do the asking, so HE has control over whether they even have a chance at a date... (Interesting psycological dance - isn't it?) At the same time, if HE has to extend the effort to win HER, then SHE is percieved as the "prize" in this situation - which leads to the "woman on a pedistal" perceptions. This also sets a precident where HE is expected to put forth the majority of the effort. He asks for a date... He suggests where to go... He pays for the date... He generally drives... She graciously "accepts" his offers of attention, effort, dinner, etc -- while mostly expected to look pretty, and get to know each other. So At this stage, it IS something of a shared control, but while HE may be in control of much of the "courting process", remember that SHE still has control of any sex.
Obviously, this IS a complex sort of dance here. The guy has been putting his best foot forward too, and doing anything he can to look good. He had to be attractive too, or she wouldn't be interested. In dating, we get into the "fishing" situation where you have to bait the hook and see what happens. You can't always tell however: which gender is the hook, which is the fish, and who gets reeled in...
Hey; Quit switching analagies on me! ...and what happened to our original story line?
_____ On the recent Teacher/Student thing:
Look back to March 2005, and the story about 27 year old Pamela Turner having sex with a 13 year old boy…
A few people were "shocked & apauled", but many people thought "No big problem." His friends thought "go Dude!"
Yet if a 25 year old MAN had sex with a 14 year old female student… we’d be outraged and DEMAND justice.
In 2002 Amy Gehring, a 26 year old teacher, had sex with a 16 year old at a party... This recently notable case involves Mary Kay Letourneau who had sex, and two kids, with boy who was twelve when things got started in 1996.
She had a suspended sentence, at first, but did prison time, when her second pregnancy proved that they had been "together" again. Now, in 2005 her "boy" friend is 22 years old, and they are geting married. This is still far from a
normal family situation ( see http://www.historylink.org/essays/o...fm?file_id=5 727 ) but evidently this boy's
impression was far from being "raped", if he was interested in getting back with Letourneau all this time.
Are there Double standards? Absolutely- but why? In Pamela’s case, it was clearly the woman’s decision to have sex (as the consenting adult). Nothing upset instinct’s apple cart… the woman was in control of any sex… so people consider it less offensive. Meanwhile, the 13 year old Boy in this story was merrily following his instincts, and much more afraid of Mom finding out than anything to do with the sex. (probably)
If you reverse the situation, a grown man having sex with a 13 year old girl DOES upset instinct’s apple cart.
We don’t consider a little girl of 13 in CoNtRoL of the situation, especially with a sex hungry man 25 yrs old.
Her instincts would be going haywire… Alert! Warning! No Commitment here. Possible baby making! I might not be in control of this sex. Who’s decision WAS it? It may have started as "just playing", while her teen-instincts were trying
new elements of having "fun" with men, and learning control. But society says that a decision on sex takes an adult.
And THAT is the basis for our double standard. But exactly WHY and HOW did it turn out this way??
Biology, psychology, and society are completely intertwined in this issue, even before questions of religion or law are taken into consideration. From the primal dawn of time, women have been more selective than men about having sex. A different attitude toward sex is wired into the very DNA of men & women. The reason why is obvious: babies. For women, sex has lifelong significance. It’s Momma’s Baby, and Papa’s Maybe, as the saying goes. She is only going to have a few babies in life, plus it takes a lot of time and energy, so for a woman, "All sex has to count". Men however, are wired a bit differently. There is still a survival instinct built in there, but it plays out a little differently. Guy instincts want to have hot sex as often as possible, with as many different women as possible. By nature, males don’t invest as much time and energy to have babies.
OK women, I know you call that unfair- unfaithful- and against the rules, but that’s the way MEN are wired:
Go for it. Hook up wherever you can. Male traits for survival are to have sex with many women, with the possibility of babies in several places. This makes for LOTS of tension between men and women.
Before really getting in the mood for sex, women try to scope out a guy who will not only be a good genetic father, but also one who will stick around "forever" and be a provider & protector for LIFE. It’s not some idyllic picture of a happy family, it’s a real world survival trait, and forms the core of feminine instinct. By nature's rules, her baby would die, if she can’t take care of it, so women want to find a guy for the long term.
If possible, she would also like to find an attractive guy -but this also fits into child survival. If he’s an attractive "fine specimen of a man" then kids might get his healthy attractive genes. This is all built into our subconscious sense of sexy & good looking. I have even heard women making conversation about a good looking guy across the room say "He’s gorgeous; I bet he’d make nice babies"! That’s Mother Nature talking. Still, the FIRST qualification to get a woman interested in a relationship is to be a good provider, and able to commit. Good looks are WAY down the line guys…
An ugly millionaire who seems faithful CAN find a gorgeous woman willing to get married and have sex - no problem. After all, the way "nature" works; if Mr. Provider can’t help make nice babies, the woman is STILL in control- and she can find another good looking volunteer to help with that part IF necessary. That’s what the pool-man or personal trainer is for.
OK men, I know you call that unfair- unfaithful- we didn’t even get to read HER rules, but that’s how WOMEN are wired.
[ of course, this plays into the delusions of fat, ugly, men anywhere, who still think they can score with a babe]
Before really getting in the mood for sex, MEN just have to be awake. Guy’s instinct and genetic programming does actually play into survival too. Given a choice, guys keep chasing that beautiful babe, trying for romance.
But what makes a woman seem more attractive to guys? Without our express consent, Mother Nature wired up guy-brains to look for the curvy young 36-26-36 with the optimal body shape for… starting a family. A curved physique with some hips is more likely to survive child birth, which means Mom will still be around to raise the family. And MEN have families too. Wait a minute… I thought men spent all their waking hours trying to have sex with every woman who will let him. Where did I get lost?
Interestingly enough, Men benefit from this family thing just as much as women. You see, both men and women start out as babies, and ALL babies tend to grow up, survive, and thrive better with both parents to take care of them. All of a sudden, instinct says it’s a survival factor for the next generation of both Men and Women if Dad is committed to a wife and family.
Warning ladies: Some shrinkage may occur. Remember that supply and demand thing? When you got married, the odds just evened out. You may find that his eager "always interested" sex drive has tapered off a bit… oh wait, he’s not awake.
HOLD ON, we were talking about Double Standards, and society’s gender bias about "Is it rape, or not"?
While it might be "improper" for a 30 year old woman to have sex with teenage boys, I would maintain that nature and instinct does NOT really consider this to be rape. The legal system is another matter entirely.
I don’t consider Pamela Turner’s actions to be "rape" because (say it with me) Women control sex.
Society seems to agree - whether it's directly stated or not. When Tracie Mokry, a 21 year old art teacher, invited seven students over to her place and had sex with two of them, the parents were more upset than the students. All sex related charges were dropped, and she was charged with giving alcohol to minors. Kimberly Merson was doing eight underage boys at a time, and that story just seemed to fade away... These were certainly illicit, and inapropriate, but as long as the woman is controlling sexual activity, nature/culture doesn't percieve things to be harmfull or out of balance. When it comes to intercoutrse, there IS NO sexual equality, ether by nature or law.
Perhaps this is even apropriate, and the way things should be, without trying to create an impossible legal equity.
Sex with women in control, everybody’s happy… Sex, but NO woman control = against nature = Rape.
Rape is not just about the having forced sex - Rape is about forcibly ripping the CONTROL of sex away from a woman, and forcing her to do something against the core of her instinct for survival. At that point, the same physical act of intercourse can change from love, beauty, and fulfillment to become defiling hatred, leaving emotional scars that last for years.
[ Can you believe this description is from a guy ??]
On the other hand, we’ve already noted that Men are NOT wired with the same instincts as women.
Men are generally "happy to get it when they can", and their instinct says "Go for it- Hook up when you can"
A woman would have a hard time forcing the CONTROL of sex away from a man. He never really had much control over that decision anyway…
OK- so an adult woman offers sex to a minor. It WAS inappropriate, and certainly should not happen between a teacher & student- and is grounds for dismissal. BUT in my opinion, that doesn’t constitute Rape, in the same sense that a Man can rape a woman. When I was a teen, guys used to wish against hope that some pretty woman would let them have sex… even if she was 15 years older.
Granted, an "unfortunate boy" who had sex with his teacher may very well have some negative repercussions. Perhaps his sense of self esteem is put off balance, he might also find it strange to date girls his age for a while. Girls his age might even shun him, as not normal. He might be confused about his owns sexual perspective or desires in the future - or start thinking it’s OK to expect sex from other women, leading to more inappropriate behavior in the future. That might cause him further trouble, as women have to set him straight: No means NO.
Most likely however, the boy is little harmed either emotionally or physically, but just wants this "madia attention" and "police / lawyer thing" to be over.
So what am I saying? Where is the boundary line? What is rape, and what isn’t?
A Man forcing a woman to have sex against her will takes CONTROL of sex from the woman, violating her psyche, as much as her body. It goes against nature and her very survival instinct. That is rape.
A woman offering sex to a man, even a young one does not TAKE away control of sex from the woman.
It’s can be inappropriate, even if both are adults, but it does not violate the psyche or go against nature in nearly the same way, and I do not think it has the same severity.
A woman forcing a man to have sex against his will would be a VERY unusual thing, but a MAN should have the same right to say NO to sex if he chooses. While it could be possible for a woman to rape a man, that sort of attack would ALSO be more about CONTROL and violating the psyche to go against his nature. Such an attack could indeed be considered rape, but as before, it’s an attack on the spirit, carried out sexually.
A Man forcing another man to have sex against his will. That one still goes against nature, violates the psyche in a traumatic way just as much as the body, and constitutes rape.
An adult MAN having sex with a consenting underage girl is statutory rape. It generally does not have the same trauma to the psyche, since the girl was in control of the sex. She said yes, instead of no but was a minor.
We (society) protect young GIRLS from having sex, because they don't have the emotional strength, self assertiveness, or understanding to make that decision for themselves. (in other words, girls "THINK" they are grown up, and want to have sex
with a hunky older guy, but they AREN'T quite mature enough for that, in adult's view)
OK, that’s it. That’s my opinion, such as you’ve read it. Views are my own, and Standard disclaimers apply. I welcome your comments, flames, agreements, etc.
I hope that this (way long) post has both given you something to think about, and prompt some good discussion for the Mens Activism readers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 07:37 AM May 23rd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Check this out!
"Never tolerate psychotic behaviour no matter how good she is in bed." Thomas Ellis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 06:20 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
And just how long does anyone expect this joke of a marriage union to last? I bet no longer than a year. It would be ironic if when they divorce SHE gets custody of the kids and a hefty child support award.
I have heard that the two bastards that resulted from the rapes have been raised on welfare.
The really tragic part of this is the real family she had before she went to humping Mr.12 yo Sex Machine. She was a respected public school teacher with I think 3 beautiful children and a devoted husband. She gave all that up for this boy who she rationalized having an abnormal sexual relationship with on the pretext that she and he knew each other in a previous lifetime! I wonder if the media talking heads will bring up those facts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:53 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me that the real victims in this sordid affair (MKL's four children by her former husband Steve) are ignored completely by the media and everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:29 PM May 23rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
Apparently the children only count when the perpitraing parent is MALE...!
I swear to God, the media makes me so sick!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
