This is not classy pron. This is emotionally damaged older women taking advantage of inexperienced young men who may not understand how sex and relationships will affect them in the long term.

We pretend men and boys don't feel anything about sex, but they do. Pressuring them to have sex too early, or taking advantage of them damages them in ways they don't even have language to talk about because the very notion sex could hurt a boy is foreign.

How many men have issues with intimacy that really stem from bad early relationships? We tell women a lot about how to identify when they are being taken advantage of, or in a toxic relationship, but where is the equivalent for men? Even when we see one, it's usually aimed at the homosexual population. There isn't a guide to help heterosexual men.

I agree with everything except the assumption that these women are emotionally damaged. Perhaps they're simply prey to their libidinous desire for a younger man, as men so often are with young girls?

Absolutely. Surely a woman can't simply be a horny person, she has to be mentally ill! (Remnants of puritanical repressive views towards female sexuality?)

Furthermore, looking through the list, many "boys" are 17, (One more year and you're a "Man"!). Have people forgotten? For a vast majority of boys/men at 17 it is ON. Getting laid is either already happened or at the top of the list of things to do. And yeah, it's weird the first time, no matter what the age of your partner. Furthermore on this list I see many women in their early 20's.

Am I defending those females on this list who are mentally damaged, who used power or age to manipulate, lure and have sex against their victims will? No. Not at all.

But to say consensual sex between a 17 year old and a woman in her early twenties is instantly a crime? Well that's a load of shit and the law is flawed. In my opinion, innocent women are going to jail for a natural and pleasurable act.

I would really like to somehow poll ALL of the victims on this list for honest off the record answers to what the experience was for them. Not the answers they told their parents, not the answers they told the law, not the answers the pressures of the often puritan and sex intolerant society, but the answers they told their best male friends in confidence. I bet a large number of them thought it was a positive experience.

Of course processing that and turning that in to law is another matter, that I don't have an immediate answer for.

If you do damaging and illegal things because you are "horny", you are emotionally damaged/mentally ill regardless of age.

Old men with young women are emotionally damaged men. Find me one that's not fucked up and I'll believe this is all just people being "horny".

There are plenty of old, rich guys with young trophy wives. What makes them emotionally damaged?

Doesn't their entire lifestyle sort of imply it? Rather than finding a fulfilling, mutual relationship, they tried to fill in the hole with someone who doesn't really love them and is only there for the money. If that doesn't say damaged, what does?

I think you're using a different definition of damaged than I am.

I am discussing the ability to form normal, secure attachments. This may help explain what I am talking about here.

At some point, something happened (or they were predisposed) to be unable to form normal, healthy peer attachments, to feel secure in someone else's love. So they seek out vulnerable partners. That could be young people, that could be people from other abusive relationships, but the point is to control the attachment to make up for their lack of security in it.

I suppose I don't believe in evil, or that anyone is just mean and cruel. Things happen to people. Something makes them act like that. I like to believe that in all instances, it can be healed, though we may not yet have the processes or technology to do so in all cases.

I'm sure there are people like that. But not all people who date people much younger than them are like that. Some are just attracted to young people.

Much younger is not the same thing as still a minor. We are talking about adults, grown-ups, who are dating minors.

Reflect back on your 16-year-old self. Were you really capable of having a mature, equal relationship with someone? If someone said they loved you, but really didn't, would you have the experience to know? I sure didn't. I don't think I knew anyone who did.

If you're 70 and dating someone who is 50, that is nothing like being 26 and dating someone who is 16.

I assume men in the same scenario are also emotionally damaged. Don't think I am letting women off lightly just because you read my words with that bias.

People don't set out saying, "I will take advantage of this young person." It is more a series of rationalizations and strong feelings that lead them to do things they ought to know are questionable or outright wrong.

These are not cruel, evil people, men and women alike, they are sad, damaged, lonely people who like secure relationships where they hold the power.

Whoa, finally something I can agree on with bones wholeheartedly!

Maybe it's not for everyone. But as a more-or-less fully developed adult, I judge my 16-year-old self fit to undergo most of the above scenarios. I don't think I'd come out any worse than I did from any of my coeval relationships.

I acknowledge that my opinion is not invariant to sex-reversal. I have not been a 16-year-old girl, so in the sex-reversed case I default to caution and general opinion.

Any grown woman who would have sex with a 16-year-old boy is a sick fuck.

Of questionable taste, at least.

That's only if you believe some of the textbooks. In others no teacher shows up, or people transfer to different classrooms, or they all get a meal but people who were well-behaved get dessert regardless of which book they read.

Provided of course that the religion has a concept for a better afterlife for the believers.

I hate you all.

Don't imagine that any amount of upmodding will get you time off for good behaviour. Yeah. That's right bitches. It's doom-cock for pain-dinner again. And everyone gets infinities.

Ah yes. So, yeah. Don't you worry about the afterlife any more. Just go ahead and waste enjoy what little time remains to you, carefree in the knowledge that an eternity of ... reward awaits us. Together. In fact you might want to play more of those extreme-sports, or become a deep-sea fisherman.

I let you into my heart, and now I blame you for everything!

So... where's the list of male teachers? For balance and all...

Given the huge number of articles that neglect female male sexual predators, or that deny that abuse of young men by women can even happen, I don't think it's unreasonable for this article to just focus on this area.

You are, as ever, completely right papango, though I think it must be mentioned that while males consistently underestimate the harm done to females as a result of sexual assault, the converse is also true. Men simply aren't as damaged by sexual assault(s) as women are.

Citation needed.

I'm inclined to agree with pleaides, but I'd like to see some empirical evidence before committing myself to a statement like that.

In the meantime, foxy teachers, instead of some 15 year old who jizzes in twenty seconds, might I suggest trying middle aged truck drivers?

What if emotionally damaged looks like normal male behavior to you simply because we keep reinforcing it as a society? Maybe men don't inherently commit more violent crimes than women. Has it ever occurred to you that all the awful messages we tell boys about themselves (you are violent, feeling things is wrong, you are always supposed to want and like sex, etc) could have damaged the whole male population so much that none of them can even realize it anymore?

No

Mmmmmmmmmaaaaaaybe?

Personally, I blame it all on circumcision trauma, which is why European men and I are so well adjusted.

I blame it on a culture that is becoming less tolerant of violence while still making violence heteronormative for males. Men are supposed to be tough and they're a gay pussy if they show feelings, but our more peaceful, modern society says they need to be nice and empathetic, etc.

Men are getting a lot of mixed signals because our gender standards and our general social standards are changing. There is no one set standard society agrees on and it's setting men up in a situation where it seems like there's no winning. Men feel like they're trying to satisfy all these mutually exclusive requirements and being blamed for failing at it. At least that's the impression I get. Men are a lot more insecure and more anxious than society pretends, and maybe it's time to acknowledge and sympathize with that vulnerability.

I think it's worse in the US than in Europe because of the more violent culture and because of the strong religious feelings about gender roles.

I'm all for sympathizing with the vulnerability of men, although I'd point out that that " Dear Woman" video that came out a while back was mocked pretty much everywhere, from the darkest recesses of the manosphere to the blogs that made fun of the manosphere. Ferris Bueller had a point about Cameron's future wife treating him like shit because you can't respect someone who kisses your ass all the time.

You're attributing way too much to nurture. We all know that sex differences are real and measurable--and they don't just end at muscle mass and tab/slot between the legs.

We keep finding the sex differences, even many physical ones, emerge because of how we treat boys and girls. For instance, there is absolutely no inherent difference in spacial reasoning between boys and girls according to newer research. What is happening is that little boys are given toys that improve spacial reasoning and girls aren't, so the boys' brains then develop (plasticity ftw) differently from girls' in that regard.

Your nature is inherent, but terribly elastic and highly determined by circumstance. You were not born Option A, you were born with a potential for Option A, A Prime, B, Option C, etc, then society and behavior affect physically how your brain grows, environmental stressors and triggers switch your alleles on and off. You don't express all your genes all the time, and the genes you do express can change when an allele turns on or off.

You are putting too much stock in old research whose goal was to justify injustice, to prove that one race or one sex was inferior.

Sorry, but sexual dimorphism is very much a thing. You're never going to convince the typical female songbird to sing as complex a song as the typical male counterpart. Just because in humans the differences are sometimes more subtle, doesn't mean we've somehow evolved out of all sexual dimorphism beyond secondary sexual features."environmental stressors and triggers switch your alleles on and off""You don't express all your genes all the time, and the genes you do express can change when an allele turns on or off."Please take a genetics course before you speak about gene expression. If you're describing things this way to people who know even less, you're spreading misinformation. Alleles do not turn on and off. You have the alleles you have, and the subsequent gene products are what get regulated. Promoters can "torn on/off" gene expression, and you can also talk about epigenetic factors like methylating DNA to alter expression.Again though, you're giving nurture way too much credit. You're not going to get a typical female to have the same testosterone levels as a typical male, no matter how many trucks and G.I. Joes you give her or how much blue she's given to wear or how many STEM jobs you encourage her to apply for. This is going to partially contribute to a difference in competitiveness and aggression. Of course you can be trained to some degree, but a major predisposition is still just that, and a real sex difference needs to be acknowledged if you wanted to hypothetically train everyone to have the exact same level of aggression.As a neurobiologist and a person that has grown up with a ton of kids encouraged to be their own snowflake (hippie daycare mom/montessori school/small liberal arts undergrad), I'm telling you that you're wrong. You can't out-nurture all of the nature--the Venn diagrams just don't completely overlap. Also, "plasticity" is often like saying "string theory" or "quantum mechanics" when trying to hand-wave arguments away from what you want to believe. Please use the term carefully and and with precise focus.

Song birds start out singing the songs of both sexes. They then mature and switch to singing only the song of their sex... mostly. But not all of them ;) Damn gay birds getting in the way of how you just know nature works.

Your nature is to adapt to your environment. Never forget that.

(90 seconds guaranteed, or your money back)

I don't have the time to dig through the book at the moment, but it's from 'The Better Angels of our Nature' by SA Pinker

I am, I admit, a bit annoyed by your reflexive downmod, so I've made time. Here's a quote from page 405 of the book;

"A survey by the psychologist David Buss shows that men underestimate how upsetting sexual aggression is to a female victim, while women overestimate how upsetting sexual aggression is to a male victim'

Consulting the endnotes I find that the paper was called, perhaps unimaginatively; "Men underestimate, women overestimate" and was published in 1989.

So, there you go.

Not exactly what your original statement was, but still an interesting conclusion. Thank you!

I guess I question whether we would be having any discussion at all over this article if the genders were flipped.

Also, does anyone else think that some of the sentences are a little lenient?

"THE WND STORY THAT STARTED IT ALL"

Joseph Farah is taking credit for teachers having sex with students now?

niceeeeeeee

There's nothing nice about sexual assault whatsoever, even if it happens to boys.

This reminds me of that disgusting Adam Sandler "comedy" called That's my Boy, that made a whole joke about a teacher raping her student - and how this caused him to be a self-destructive, immature alcoholic as an adult.

Besides a few activist groups asking for boycotts, most of the public didn't even bat an eye. The only good new is they lost money on this horrible film.

Adam Sandler movies have been hemorrhaging money for over a decade. The reason he's somehow still a movie star is because he runs his own production company. Red Letter Media joked about how they're all just scams to rip-off investors in their review of Jack and Jill. These movies have budgets of over $100 million, yet they always look like they were made for under $30 million.

You gotta say this for the guy, his movies might be shit, but he takes care of his friends.

I can't help but wonder: Were it a list of male teachers who had sex with underage female students, would it still be nice, or would it be disgusting and/or baying-for-their-blood time?

It's disgusting. Always. It does not matter if the kids consent or really think they want sex; they lack the experience and maturity (according to our legal system) to fully understand the consequences of their sexual activities.

There will always be an imbalance of power in that relationship which makes meaningful consent questionable if not impossible.

Well, you have to remember that it wasn't that long ago that a woman who hadn't died trying to give birth before she was fourteen was considered a spinster. Age of consent laws don't really take that into account.

Then again, if we're going by seventeenth century standards, these high school students would be having sex with the equivalent of septuagenarians.

Untrue. Women were sometimes married at young ages (for political/contractual reasons), but those were paper marriages that would not be lived out for years. They did not engage in real marital activities until around the age of 15, and the average age of having first children was typically in their 20s.

Most of what we know about how things used to be is just made up.

It's a double standard.

Included the pictures they used. I notice a couple glamor shots snuck in there.

Well for one thing it would probably be 20 times longer.

Try 20000

The Scarlet Letter in real life.

WTF:

Erin McLean, 30: Student teacher at West High School in Knoxville, Tenn., who became sexually involved with student Sean Powell in 2005. On March 10, 2006, police say McLean’s husband, using a shotgun, killed the 18-year-old boy as he sat in his car outside the McLean’s home. Eric McLean was charged in the boy’s death and is out on bail. Temporary custody of the couple’s children was awarded to the wife. Erin McLean subsequently was hired, under her maiden name, at a Christian school, but was dismissed after a parent complained of her attentions toward a 17-year-old boy. She disappeared in Sept. 2007 from Knoxville with her children, telling an uncle she was going to Califoria to meet someone she met on the Internet.

Are murder suspects usually allowed to make bail?

She was not a murder suspect. Her husband murdered the boy.

I know that. Eric McLean was charged in the boy’s death and is out on bail.

Maybe he was charged with something less than murder.

Textbook case of I Guess It Was A Crime Of Passion But Hey, The Prisons Are Pretty Full With Drug Offenders So Just Be On Your Best Behavior And We'll Let You Out.

Err, sorry, that should be 2nd degree IGIWACOPBH,TPAPFWDOSJBOYBBAWLYO.

Cameo Patch

If schools were run by Catholics, these teachers would be quietly shifted to a different district.

Nice.

Nice.

A) I must have went to the wrong school.
B) I did have a brief relationship with a woman who was teaching at my high school while I was there. But it was 20 years after I graduated. And she was dirty kinky....