Your Lying Eyes

Dedicated to uncovering the truth that stands naked before your lying eyes.

E-mail Me

Twitter: yourlyingeyes

09 December 2005

What's With the Babe Teachers Seducing Teenage Boys?

Debra Lafave
Debra Beasley Lafave (as with assassins, it is de rigeur to use 3-part names to refer to teacher-seductresses) was dealt a blow in her effort to stay out of prison. She was supposed to be sentenced to three years house arrest and 7 years probation for having sex with a 14-year old boy in Florida. But a judge in one county has balked at the deal, so she may yet do some "hard time".

The bleeding heart in me (yes, there is one down deep, way down) can't see putting this pathetic creature behind bars. But then I realize that in some other societies she would have suffered far worse than prison (the only question being whether she would still be alive when they burned her body). But it all boils down to who you view as the victim.

In modern America, the 14-year old boy is considered the victim. Being seduced by this gorgeous 23-year old woman would probably not be every 14 year old's idea of victimhood - more like a dream come true. Now psychologists will assure us that the boy is just as much a victim in this situation as a girl seduced by a man. Perhaps true to an extent, but these cases aren't big news because people feel sorry for the boys. One expert remarked: "When a woman is an offender, it’s treated differently — especially if she’s attractive. It shakes everybody’s conception of what should be."

Exactly. It turns our world upside down. Attractive young women are an extremely valuable commodity to society - Debra Lafave on her wedding daythey are the most desirable of mates. Wealthy, powerful men seek out young beauties and shower them with gifts - each hoping his alpha-genes can mix with her nubile genome. For such a precious natural resource to be squandered on some teenager is an offense against nature. It is so perverse we naturally assume these perpetrators to be mentally disturbed.

But what about the double standard - why do we punish men more than women in statutory rape cases. Here's Super Liberal Susan Estrich:
None of these women is "Mrs. Robinson" and none of these boys will escape the injury and stigma that rape victims too often suffer. In many respects, being a boy can make it even harderharder to come forward in the first place, harder to testify, harder to deal later on with the complex of emotions and feelings that can so easily get in the way of a healthy sexual relationship.[Emphasis childishly mine. She goes on...] What makes all of these cases particularly egregious is...the abuse of power inherent in the teacher-student relationship. All of this is so clear when the man is the teacher and the girl is the student that it is striking to see how automatically most of us apply the double standard.
For liberals, civilization began some time last century, and so they view all laws as protecting the oppressed against the powerful - for example, they like to think that statutory rape laws are there to protect our children against predators, when of course they serve the same function as laws against burglary - to protect our property against thieves. A man seducing a teenaged girl is doing what comes naturally - just like a thief stealing jewels or a prized heffer. Draconian punishment is meted out to livestock thieves and rapists alike. But turn the tables and what do you have? Teenaged boys are valuable (as potential hunters, warriors or simple farmers), but their virginity is not. The procreational capabilities of young men are effectively limitless - you can't "steal" that. So what's to punish?

Still, do we really want adult women seducing teenaged boys? Society has little to fear from the odd sensational case that pops up every few months. But if it becomes common, this is probably not something we'd want to encourage - or fail to discourage. Marriage is in trouble enough - men's fears of their wives running off with wealthier men or cuckolding more masculine men's children add enough strain - we don't need to add teenage boys to the mix as well (can you say MILF?). So I say - throw the book at the little tart!

17 Comments:

Blogger Matt Saturday said...

What's with this not happening when I was in school. Those lucky punks!

December 10, 2005 12:55 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

My feeling on that is that even if it did happen, it would have been no more likely that a hot teacher would have propostioned me than it was for any good-looking girl my age to have done so - i.e, not likely at all.

December 10, 2005 3:21 PM  
Blogger Glaivester said...

The major reason why sex with young girls bothers people more is the risk of pregnancy. In a society where males are not expected to care for their kids, it makes a great deal of sense to treat these situations differently when the sexes are reversed.

On the other hand, in a society where males are expected to, and often legally required to, provide for children they sire, the consequences for the male of a pregnancy resulting are much more severe, and therefore it makes more sense to punish the teacher on the basis that she put him at risk of having the repsonsibility of being a parent when he was not of an age to make such a decision.

December 12, 2005 12:23 AM  
Anonymous Russell Wardlow said...

Not surprisingly, Susan Estrich is (screamingly, hysterically) wrong, blinded by her feminist ideology, which seems to have approached the level of doublethink.

All that talk about how damaged the boy is?

Hilarious. Does that incredible shame and emotional crippling happen before or after the kid goes and tells his friends and exchanges high-fives with all of them?

December 12, 2005 11:20 AM  
Anonymous daveg said...

If the woman gets pregnant the boy will be screwed (in more ways than one I guess). He will be liable for child support when he turns 18, if not before. His life will be ruined.

While it (suprisingly) hasn't happened in most of these cases, the risk is enough that these matters should be taken seriously.

December 12, 2005 12:37 PM  
Blogger Manhattan Transfer said...

Unless we suffer some sort of demographic trauma, I don't think we're in much danger of this sort of thing becoming very common. You might expect it in some populations that are suffering from a dearth of eligible males in their twenties, but even among these groups we find that women would prefer to share an older man than pair off with a teenager.

December 12, 2005 3:18 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

As far as the boy's liability should the woman get pregnant, we could try to handle that via draconian punishment for the woman, or we could simply exempt any underage male from paternal responsibility if the female is an adult.
I generally agree this is too rare to justify making examples of the women, and the public shame should keep any sane women honest. We'll see in a few years if this gets any worse.

December 13, 2005 12:01 AM  
Anonymous jimbo said...

Well Ziel, we both "shared" a 7th grade English teacher that I would have been more than happy to oblige as a victim... in my (many) dreams.

December 13, 2005 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Russell Wardlow said...

Daveg,

Like ziel suggests, the obvious and logical way to fix that problem is to exempt the boy, since the whole theory of statutory rape is that the minor doesn't have the mental capacity to consent, meaning that the adult by definition took advantage of the kid.

Not that that will ever happen though, since the support rules regarding males and their illegitimate children are so screwy (see, e.g. abortion).

December 13, 2005 12:02 PM  
Anonymous daveg said...

You are some cold and calculating dudes.

While I agree that eliminating financial liability would help the situtation it is not really the answer to this problem.

a) this suggested change in law is simply not going to happen becuase that would open the flood gates for all sorts of questions regarding when exectly a man should be financially responsible for offspring he did not consent too. The child support industry will not even consider such "nonesense."

b) even if the boy is not financially responsible there will be mental anguish in this person knowing that he has a child out there in the world, or worse yet in the community in which he lives. And the child will be realtively close to him in age.

That said, I agree that if there is no pregnancy and the boy is more than 14 the damage done to the boy is not so great in most cases. My real point is that high-fives are not in order and the activity should not be viewed as trivial as the boy does face some serious risks.

December 13, 2005 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Russell Wardlow said...

Daveg,

Whether or not you're going to frown and say "high-fives are not in order," the plain fact is that 90% of boys would consider themselves blessed with mana from heaven should an older, not-ugly woman try to bed them.

I don't know where you're coming up with this chimera of psychological damage, but it is positively batty.

December 14, 2005 1:00 AM  
Blogger Glaivester said...

I think it swhould be pointed out that the real issue here is the sex of the teacher, not of the student.

If Deb LaFave were a male, society would be out for blood whether the student were male or female. Likewise, if the student were female (and Deb LaFave still female) society would probably still be inclined to be lenient.

December 15, 2005 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wanted to follow up the point about the male rape victim becoming liable for his child's support when he becomes 18.



This happened to an acquaintence of mine. The seductress (or rapist, depending on your point of view)was 23, and her son was 16. The court---unbelievably or not---ordered sole custody of the child to the 23 year old women. NO visitation rights for the 16 year old. Then when he graduated from high school, the 'seductress' (or rapist) appealed to the court for child support---WHICH WAS GRANTED!!

Of course, here's a 18 year kid, put behind the eight ball before he's even begun his working life, and he or his family haven't even seen his child!

After several years of appeals, the 18 year old--"seduced" at 16---is now 23, and finally was granted 2 weeks a year for his mother and him to spend with his son!

How the 'rapist' --- or seductress---got her cake and got to eat it too, I'll never know. But such is the bias against males in the family court system!!

December 18, 2005 9:45 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

That is a believably frustrating tale. Our justice system can be very irrational. When it comes to family court, it's "noble" charge is to do what's "best" for the child and everyone else be damned.

December 18, 2005 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Inversiones en petroleo said...

Hello i think that this is a great post!!!

April 29, 2011 1:29 PM  
Anonymous viagra online said...

I had a similar teacher when I was in the high school, she was so beautiful , she was may be 245 years old, she said me that she want had sex with me, I said yes, but we never had it!! only sexual games after class!

May 17, 2011 2:32 PM  
Anonymous maxidus sex shop said...

I believe one and all must glance at it.

October 28, 2011 2:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home