These woman teachers who have sex with young boys...

When I was 13, I'd have happily slipped one up a number of the female teachers who worked at my school, and I can assure you it wouldn't have harmed me or arrested my development in any way!

I can't be the only one who does NOT see these boys as 'victims' in any sense of the word. I think these women need serious psychological help, not sending to prison.

Yes, obviously. I did not need societies protection from that either. I'm now an adult (pfft, 18. I don't really feel like one at all) and can happily say a sex life during puberty would have been the best thing in the world for me.

But what can we do? Teenages have no voice in politics. Most people are still anti-sexualists and will discourage all kinds of sexual activity between teens. I think it may partially be jealously. "I didn't get to have sex while i was a teen so I don't want anyone else to".

But no moral standard should be forced on anyone. I have never heard an argument that is sound for why teen sex is wrong, teen-teen or teen-adult. So it is absolutely disgusting that a "moral" standard that I didn't want as a teen was forced upon me.

1. Manipulation. what? I could have been manipulated into doing something that I wanted to do? it makes no sense.
2. Stds? - education
3. Pregnancy? - education
4. Heart broken from getting too close, teens can't handle it? Better to have ###$ and broken up than to never have ###$ at all.


I mean, it is nosensical. Many adults in the usa think it is okay to cut their infant males genitals up. Child abuse, molestation and genital mutilation. yet when it comes to teen sex GROSS!

I mean, it is nosensical. Many adults in the usa think it is okay to cut their infant males genitals up. Child abuse, molestation and genital mutilation.

Circumcision is hardly "molestation;" it makes life and hygiene significantly easier. But I agree with your overall point. Teens can get heartbroken from relationships with each other; that's not unique to adult-teen sex.

Anxious58 wrote:I think it may partially be jealously. "I didn't get to have sex while i was a teen so I don't want anyone else to".

That's interesting. And probably very close to the truth (or at least part of the truth, as you rightly point out). I'd like to see some historical documentation regarding the debates that surrounded the creation of age of consent laws in various countries, to see what motives were being expressed. Of course, we have to take into account ulterior motives. I know from getting to the root of some female friends' opinions (women well into adulthood) that one reason they're uncomfortable with men looking at young pubescent girls is, ultimately, jealousy that they can't compete with them.

However, we shouldn't forget parental instinct. It's natural to want to preserve the chastity of your offspring for as long as possible, though in the case of boys it's often more like 'get out there and get some p***y, son'. That's mostly because male promiscuity is not frowned upon, and because the consequences of a female engaging in sexual activity can be life-changing (babies!).

Any other reasons why people might want to control adolescent sexuality? (Incidentally, controlling other people's behaviour is a strong factor in legal instruments.) I'd like to make a new thread about such reasons, but my intellectual side would then want to do some research into the aforementioned debates surrounding creation of age of consent laws in various countries.

Anxious58 wrote:But no moral standard should be forced on anyone. I have never heard an argument that is sound for why teen sex is wrong, teen-teen or teen-adult. So it is absolutely disgusting that a "moral" standard that I didn't want as a teen was forced upon me.

Haha. So you could argue you've been damaged by not having sex as a young teen? Well, I guess a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and to be effective and viable it needs to be drawn at an age where all individuals are considered sufficiently mature. Why that age should be 18 (e.g. most US states) is beyond me. 16 seems more reasonable to me (e.g. UK and much of Europe), and I wouldn't be against the 15 that it very nearly was in the UK. 14 (e.g. several countries in Europe) seems OK to me, particularly as in countries such as Germany they say that the age of consent is 16, but 14 and 15 are OK where there is no evidence whatsoever of coercion (i.e. the teenager more or less has to initiate everything). Spain's 13 is a little low in my opinion, much as I'd love to sleep with girls that age. I'd be particularly interested in the debates surrounding the creation of that particular age of consent, though much more interested to hear how the Vatican City crew settled on 12.

Still, the salient questions are:

1) Should a line be drawn?
2) If so, at what age?
3) Should we differentiate between the sexes?
4) Should we differentiate in terms of homosexual/heterosexual?

My answers would be:

1) Yes, to protect the vulnerable, even though this prevents individuals who may be genuinely ready from engaging in sexual activity.
2) Don't know. I don't think any authorities (legal, medical, etc.) really know either.
3) Tricky. Don't know.
4) Tricky. Don't know.

First of all i'd like to say one thing.. As for the OPs example, the teacher thing would be wrong, though not because of age. But wrong as it is for people over 18 in colleges or university. I don't think the system could work as well with teacher-student sex. Though, the punishment shouldn't be as severe as it is now. Perhaps not even a matter of jail, but being banned from teaching.

Haha. So you could argue you've been damaged by not having sex as a young teen?

Exactly! Though I realise more than one opportunity presented itself when i was 13, with other peers, not adults. It seems like that's the age where experimentation and excitement over sex was at its most. Yet my few opportunities were missed. I was so dumb. I mean the girls were so fricken obvious about it. - I guess my tastes were more narrow, more attracted to the stereotypical crap. So regretful, I could have been laid, who cares if they weren't perfect. (I guess this whole story debunks the myth that some adults like to hold, that young teens are non-sexual).

16 seems more reasonable to me (e.g. UK and much of Europe), and I wouldn't be against the 15 that it very nearly was in the UK. 14 (e.g. several countries in Europe) seems OK to me, particularly as in countries such as Germany they say that the age of consent is 16, but 14 and 15 are OK where there is no evidence whatsoever of coercion (i.e. the teenager more or less has to initiate everything).

Agree with that. Especially the initiating part. If there's no coercion it is fine.
As for any lower (as puberty starts a couple years before 14).. I'm well aware there could be complications. Although I don't think the laws are helpful, nor the hysteria surrounding the issue. W/o coercion i don't think the penalties should be so severe even for young puberty-adult.

1) Should a line be drawn?
2) If so, at what age?
3) Should we differentiate between the sexes?
4) Should we differentiate in terms of homosexual/heterosexual?

1/2):
The system should incorporate the age of the older party. I mean there should be no minimum age, but very young people can only have sex with very young people. Defining adult as over 18 removes complications somewhat but is limiting. Though we can use it. Perhaps people.... well it's hard to tell as we all develop at different rates all the way until we're 20. I have thought about it a bit and realise it's rather complicated. Though I think people 14+ should be able to have sex with who they like. But any law reform (even more conservative than what i'm suggesting) will not be brought about by anyone, as they'd be called a paedo by everyone.
3) To consider: girls develop faster and prefer (from what i have witnessed) guys 1 or 2 years old (perhaps more). Which is ironic because they are offered far more "protection" from sexual acts.. Even though they are indeed more developed from their male counterparts. Sexism.. (facepalm)
4) Everything i have said applies to homos too.

sorry, double post edit.

I feel that it would not be right for students and teachers to have sexual relations, not because its immoral, but because its unprofessonal. It creates conditions of extreme bias and a so called "dual relationship" (professonal and personal). In many of the theraputic professions these types of relationships are discussed and the objective is to avoid them. It would also breed animosity among other students should they know about it, and creates an unfair power balance between the student and teacher, much like a subordinant dating a manager. These issues are why many companies forbid subordinant/manager relations.

Also in regards to circumcision any arguments for clenliness in circumcising the male can also be made for the female. In theory if you have less folds and things there is less tissue which may be damaged providing an entryway for pathogens, and fewer places to accumulate secretions which may harbor bacteria and viruses. If circumcision had a noteable inpact on the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases we would see less STDs in the U.S. than europe, but this is not the case. It is the opposite infact.
But female genital mutilation is viewed with horror, while it is okay to cut genitals on male babies. This is a double standard, It also goes against the idea of self ownership. I know i would be pissed as hell if somone did somthing to my junk as a baby. Thats just my 2 cents.