Perp or Horny--You Decide
Take a look at this video about a 36-year-old mother using MySpace.com to lure young men to her home for sex. It states that some of the young victims did not want to come forward because the perpetrator was a woman. What do you think--is this woman a perp or is she just horny?
Update: Here is an older article (2002) from USA Today looking at the gray area of adult-child sex. Take a look at what they say about a Dutch law that allows adults to have sex with 12-16 year olds legally if the youngster consents to it. Twelve seems too young to me--fourteen seems a more reasonable age to make that type of decision.
Update: Here is an older article (2002) from USA Today looking at the gray area of adult-child sex. Take a look at what they say about a Dutch law that allows adults to have sex with 12-16 year olds legally if the youngster consents to it. Twelve seems too young to me--fourteen seems a more reasonable age to make that type of decision.
posted by Helen at 6:42 PM
46 Comments:
I'd be interested to learn more about the age range of the boys. They used the word "teenage" quite a bit which of course includes 18 and 19 year olds. They did mention the one boy was 15.
I guess for me I can imagine somebody older but still legally underage getting to the house, realizing it was a bait and switch, and leaving. In other words morally if not legally I feel like a 17 year old could consent in that situation and have it mean something. Or at least as much as an 18 year old boy.
For a kid more like 15 or below it seems like even without physical coersion or the kind of "color of authority" problems when it's a teacher or other authority figure... it just seems too easy to imagine that she could manipulate them. "I'll tell your parents if you don't do XXX".
I should also state that with the 17 year old scenario I don't think it's OK, especially with the bait and switch aspect, but it's more like "She really shouldn't have done that and should be punished" versus "You're going to the special Hell."
Nice Firefly reference, Doug!
Lock her up. She was definitely taking advantage of these boys, and the reasoning behind statutory rape works for both genders.
"Statutory rape" is a dumb crime. Teenagers are old enough to have sex, and do it all the time. I agree that this falls in the "no-no" category, rather than the "perversion" or "horrible abuse" category. It's a misdemeanor, not a felony, or should be. And that's true regardless of gender. I don't think that women deserve the nasty punishments that men get. I think that men deserve the slap-on-the-wrist punishments that most women get.
So I guess I'm voting for "horny," not "perv."
After the whole Duke fiasco with the lacross players I'd like to know more before I say anything.
Is this the only type of thing this blog is ever going to be about?
Question: "is this woman a perp or is she just horny?"
Answer: Yes.
And she's a perp.
I disagree with Brian who wrote "the reasoning behind statutory rape works for both genders." The reasoning behind such laws is thoroughly sexist and rooted in the double standards of both the traditionalist and feminist camps. Such sexist double standards portray a boy as "lucky" and girl as "victim" even when the girl was a predatory Lolita.
Sigh.
(P.S. Thank you Dr. Helen for being willing to bring up controversial topics like this and examine them critically and fairly.)
Is this the only type of thing this blog is ever going to be about?
I'll never understand why people use the comments section to criticize what people want to talk about on their own blogs. Aren't there millions of blogs out there? Find one you like.
My answer: Perp'. Throw the same book at her as at any man who lures teen (or younger) girls for sexual purposes.
It seems to me that, if she were just horny, she could find young guys who would really get off on "doing" an "older woman." Not that that would make it okay, maybe depending on the guy's age, but her deception is a factor in my response. *She* knows it's not okay.
Michael--
I have a problem with some rationales for statutory rape laws, but I would say that the law is correct in stating that a 15 year old cannot meaningfully consent to have sex with a 30 year old, regardless of the genders involved. Now, if it's applied incorrectly so that the 15 year old girl is considered a victim while the 15 year old boy is considered lucky, that's not the statute's fault.
The article you linked to confuses statutory rape (adult has sex with minor incapable of consent) with date rape (man has sex with reluctant but not refusing woman, who cries rape afterwards.) The first should remain against the law, the second needs some real limits.
Brian said: date rape (man has sex with reluctant but not refusing woman, who cries rape afterwards.)
I need to disagree with this definition. I am a woman who, in college, was on a date with a man who raped me. I knew him. I wasn't attacked by a stranger in an unlit park, or whatever one might consider "traditional" rape. But I said no, unequivocally, that I did not want to have sex, and he forced the issue. Let me emphasize the "forced" part. And I wasn't simply "reluctant"- I said no. I shouted no. I tried to get away once it became clear what he intended. And it happened anyway, because he was bigger than me.
Before you jump on me as a champion of the "woman as victim" viewpoint, let me say that I do realize that there are situations where a woman accuses a man of date rape when she was only reluctant, and not actively refusing, struggling, etc. And I agree with you that this can be a problem- false accusations of rape are never to be taken lightly (Duke lacrosse, anyone?). But non-consensual forced sex does happen between people who are on a date. Your definition seems to imply that any woman on a date who has sex with a man and then says it was rape was not in fact raped, merely that she was reluctant and later regrets having had the sex. That blanket statement isn't true.
Sorry to be off-topic.
Helen,
Let's revise your post and ask the question again:
Take a look at this video about a 36-year-old father using MySpace.com to lure young women to his home for sex. It states that some of the young victims did not want to come forward because the perpetrator was a man. What do you think--is this guy a perp or is he just horny?
Now, would any of you answer the question differently?
Frank H
I believe she's a horny perp, and pervert at that.
I think this has always been around, yet only recently have these items been coming to the forefront. I think that women are as bad, if not worse, than men in this department because women know they will get away with it. It's just the kind of world we live in.
I am having problems getting my car inspected, so the sticker has expired. My wife has been pulled over twice for it and given nice friendly warnings. My 19-year-old daughter was pulled over for it and got a nice friendly warning. I was pulled over and got a ticket. That's just the way this world works.
A few questions need to be answered:
1. How old were the "young men"?
2. If they were minors, were they injured by the liasons themselves or are they being injured by the social hoopla surrounding their discovery? (What was the news title "Woman rapes boy 23 times in 8 days"? Yea, right!)
To anonymous 9:32 PM:
Both forceable rape and statuatory rape are areas where I am quite comfortable with a double standard. A stupid 13 year old girl can get pregnant. A stupid 13 year old boy can't.
To anonymous 6:36 AM:
I have no doubts that most rapes occur on dates. If you're being raped, it is entirely acceptable (even encouraged) to inflict major pain on the guy. Kick him in the nuts or go for his eyes with your fingernails. Shoot him if you have a gun and can get to it. But the response has to occur right then and there. It is completely unacceptable for the woman to take a day or so to decide that she was raped. At that point, she deserves not to be believed.
BobH,
Sorry to inform you but a " stupid" 13 year old boy who gets a woman pregnant can be held liable for child support etc. so imagine the consequences for having sex with an older woman and getting her pregnant. I do not believe in a double standard. If we have these laws on the books, they should apply across genders. If we decide to change them (which I think we should), it should be equal for both genders.
Anonymous 6:36:
The problem is that feminists such as Mckinnon have advocated that anytime a woman has sex with a man, she can call it rape. This cheapens and makes it harder for women such as yourself who are real victims of rape to get a fair shake. I am sorry for what happened to you and do not justify forced rape of any type. However, when feminists yell all sex is rape, it destroys the credibility of women who truly are raped.
She's a horny perp.
Perv. Anyone in their mid-thirties, male or female, who has or tries to have sex with a 15 year old is a pervert.
To Helen:
The distinction that I'm trying to make is between the sexual intercourse itself and the reaction of the larger society to that intercourse. When a 13 year old girl gets pregnant, it is because of the intercourse itself. The 13-year old boy, or his parents, pays child support because of the societal reaction to that intercourse.
I read that, a few years ago, there was a paper presented at an American Psychiatric Association convention stating that statuatory rape should be abolished because the kids were being hurt more by the societal reaction than by the relationship itself. More than one conservative pundit attacked the paper and its premise pretty vigorously.
Do you know anything about it?
To anonymous 6:36
In my previous post, it may have sounded that I was trying to imply that you didn't resist enough. That was not my intent.
BobH,
I haven't seen that paper but it sounds like a good one.
What's the problem?
Both forceable rape and statuatory rape are areas where I am quite comfortable with a double standard. A stupid 13 year old girl can get pregnant. A stupid 13 year old boy can't.
It's far more practical to make a thirty year old man who impregnates a 13 year old support both of them financially than it is to demand the same of a 13 year old boy who impregnates a 30 year old woman.
definition seems to imply that any woman on a date who has sex with a man and then says it was rape was not in fact raped,
In a society with due process, for all legal purposes, in the absence of corraborating evidence, she was not. Realistically speaking, he said/she said is not a sound basis for deciding a criminal verdict, and we have a presumption of innocense. If that sounds harsh, consider that even the Spanish Inquisition required at least TWO accusing witnesses.
horny perv
I read that, a few years ago, there was a paper presented at an American Psychiatric Association convention stating that statuatory rape should be abolished because the kids were being hurt more by the societal reaction than by the relationship itself
Not surprising. All the slippery slope arguments raised in response to the first gay rights rumblings thirty years ago are now coming true.
For fun, let's just toss this one out there - in terms of hard science, a stronger case can be made for pedophilia, primarily as it is limited to kids who have become biologically fertile, being a natural behavior than for homosexuality, especially in a species with strong evolutionary imperatives for monogamy inherent in their reproductive makeup. The primary natural drive of any organism is to get as many of one's genes into the next generation as possible - basic Darwin. Biologists have shown that when the female of a species is receptive outside of the fertile part of her cycle, this is a strong evolutionary pressure for monogamy. Given that, a male human's best evolutionary investment of his energy and biological capital is to secure a mate within weeks of her menarche. It might even be a sound strategy to establish a mating bond with the best specimens prior to puberty in order to "beat the rush." Gestation and birthing only become more difficult and risky with each passing year.
On the other hand, homosexuality is a dead end for passing one's genes to the next generation. This is the objective, completely amoral calculus of evolutionary biology.
To Dweeb 1:19:
Your comment about monogamy being a result of sexual receptivity while infertile will come as a real surprise to Bonobos. I would suggest that you read David Buss' book The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (2nd ed).
Since she's a dog it's a crime, if she was one of those hoochie mama schoolteachers it'd be a different story.
Bobh,
Your general position that "pedophilia is a natural consequence of heterosexuality is historically obvious - marruaige to 14 and 15 year old girls was the norm not many generations ago in this country. A 20-year-old woman was an old maid if she wasn't married.
However, "homosexuality is a dead end for passing one's genes to the next generation." only looks sensible if you discount the evolutionary advantage in lowering the ratio of adults to young in assuring that mre individuals survive to breeding age. If someone who has no offspring of his own contributes to raising his sibling's kids, he does pass on his genes. Another example of this is the evolution of menopause, which is pretty much unique to humans - it decreases the birthrate, but it increases the survival rate (of toddlers and older) because it frees Mom to get back to gathering or growing more food.
dadvocate,
Why is a 35-year-old having sex with a 15 year old a pervert? I think that would make many generations of men perverts since 15-year-old girls were routinely married to 35-year-old men for thousands of years.
As a teenager I worked at a grocery store where a 36-year-old cashier took a liking to me. I thought it was great, and many years later still think it was great. Was she a pervert? I have no reason to think so. Why do you?
Jim
Dweeb said that stuff, not me. What you're describing is kin altruism, courtesy of William Hamilton in the early 1960s. I somewhat agree with you and so does Buss. Menopause is mentined and he added a chapter on homosexuality for the 2nd edition of his book. The entire field of evolutionary psychology is not nearly as deterministic as most people think.
Just horny. I don't see the teenage boys as being "victimized." A bit more like being offered an opportunity that no teenage boy would decline, nor regret in retrospect after he comes of age.
Having had to raise a promiscuous daughter, I had a hard time with the idea of adults having sex with girls who are 14. In fact, I remember threatening a horny 18 year old young man with jail who was trying to nail her because the word had gotten out that she was "easy". My thinking is that if one isn't in a position to raise a family on their own nickel and are not even legally adult, then one better not be screwing, period. Yes, they want to screw and yes, some WILL screw, but that doesn't make it right or desireable.
A transcript might be useful... videos are so...slow and uninformative.
Bandit: If she were one of those hoochie mama school teachers, she would still be a perverted perp and a criminal. Sadly, enough female school teachers, some of them really hot-looking, have seduced their young male students to disprove your theory. If caught, they are prosecuted.
The problem with determining an appropriate age for consent is that people are variable. Some 14 year old boys and girls are fully functioning--physically at least. Some 18 year old boys and girls are very late bloomers and still very child-like. The reason for the older age statutory rape laws is to protect all kids, no matter their age. A 35 year old man or woman in these times (since we don't live in the age when 14 year olds marry all the time--like my husbands great grandma)must exercise caution. There is no shortage of legal, young looking people. Have at it!
This woman sought younger guys for predatory reasons, which could also be horny, but that doesn't matter. Her activity should stay illegal.
Jim,Bobh,
Regarding menopause, very few women lived past breeding age until humans had progressed to the point that they were shaping their environment, rather than the other way around. Human history has been the story of a gradual elimination of evolutionary pressures on our own species.
One who helps raise nieces and nephews doesn't serve one's own unique genetic makeup - siblings vary too much genetically, and again, such arrangements didn't occur until human had started taking themselves off the evolutionary track. At this point a good case can be made that humans are DE-evolving as civilization now largely erases the evolutionary consequences of low intelligence, weak immune systems, and other evolutionary liabilities.
Regardless of those points, there is still a stronger case to be made that a man wanting a fertile 12 year old girl is a more natural drive than for a man to want another man, in an evolutionary context, and thus the paper Bobh mentions is not surprising, given that the camel got its nose under the tent a couple decades ago.
All reasonable people draw a line somewhere separating acceptable sexual behavior from unacceptable. Once the majority view of where that line should be located becomes easily movable, such movement will just accelerate.
Anon 6:36--
By date rape, I don't mean "rape that happened on a date," but the particular kind of cheapening of the concept that MacKinnon advocates. The state doesn't need a new term to prosecute the criminal who attacked you.
I learned a new term from CNN yesterday. If I heard right it is "Cougering." This is the practice of women seeking out younger male sex partners.
As women get more financially independent, I suspect we will see much more of this.
(Does anybody more with it know if I got the term right? Any cougers out there?)
Cougar is spelt with an "a".
Use of the term (not the concept) is more common on the West Coast, and in Canada.
Leopard skin tights or mini-skirt is also part of the description of a typical cougar. Cougars don't always chase children - the concept generally applies to much younger men. Typical is 40+ year old women in a bar frequented by young, horny soldiers.
Holdfast,
Thanks. I was once a young soldier in bars. I guess nothing has changed much.
"Twelve seems too young to me--fourteen seems a more reasonable age to make that type of decision."
I can't believe a person of your experience said that. Almost no teen has the ability to make such a decision without some kind of help, and, at times, even restraint. Teens are driven too much by their hormones. The old saw about teen-aged boys is now true about teen-aged girls ("every once in a while, for a second or two, a teen-aged boy thinks of something other than sex"). The institutions designed to protect teens, designed over thousands of years of experience, have been dismantled by today's "do-gooders" and "elites".
Children need parents to help them to survive, and to grow into adults (by adults I do not mean todays grown-up children that we call adults!). This is true of teens as much as little children.
I don't know who all these guys are that think this a perversion, but I remember when I was 15. At that age I would have had sex with whoever offered. I would have also been fully aware of the consequences. Think about this. At the time, I could have gotten into my car and driven myself there....
I don't know who all these guys are that think this a perversion, but I remember when I was 15.
So do we - the difference is we're contemplating our natures then through the lens of our current maturity, and you're developing events today through the lens of your thinking when you were 15
At that age I would have had sex with whoever offered. I would have also been fully aware of the consequences.
If you perceive little or no difference between your discretion skills then and now, that's more a reflection of arrested development now than of being a prodigy then.
Think about this. At the time, I could have gotten into my car and driven myself there....
Seen the differential accident rates for teen drivers?
David Hardy wrote: "Just horny. I don't see the teenage boys as being "victimized." A bit more like being offered an opportunity that no teenage boy would decline, nor regret in retrospect after he comes of age."
For some guys, that would be the case. But for some other guys,it bothers them. A lot. They are overwhelmed by the experience or think that their other sexual experiences will be similar. This is often not the case. I have seen men in my office who discuss similar early sexual experiences as a real problem for them.
Trey
"Having had to raise a promiscuous daughter, I had a hard time with the idea of adults having sex with girls who are 14. In fact, I remember threatening a horny 18 year old young man with jail who was trying to nail her because the word had gotten out that she was "easy". My thinking is that if one isn't in a position to raise a family on their own nickel and are not even legally adult, then one better not be screwing, period. Yes, they want to screw and yes, some WILL screw, but that doesn't make it right or desireable."
Is it right or desirable for these people to still be children? Shouldn't we be trying to raise them in a timely manner, rather than taking three months off every year of school, blatantly stalling the instruction even when school is in session, and generally trying to drag out childhood as long as humanly possible?
"I can't believe a person of your experience said that. Almost no teen has the ability to make such a decision without some kind of help, and, at times, even restraint."
Because they're still ignorant and helpless, thanks to our slow educational and childrearing practices.
"Teens are driven too much by their hormones."
We're all driven by our hormones until we reach middle age. Women seem to have stronger sex drives in their thirties than at any other time of their lives - should we take away their majority status during that time?
Hormones don't make teenagers into idiots any more than it makes the rest of us into idiots. Slow and inadequate education and a lack of incentive (i.e., responsible behavior doesn't shorten their sentence, and someone else pays for their irresponsible behavior) makes people act like idiots.
"The institutions designed to protect teens, designed over thousands of years of experience, have been dismantled by today's "do-gooders" and "elites"."
You mean the institutions such as marriage that used to bind teenagers together before "do-gooders" and "elites" decided to take up what should have been people's early adulthood with a mickey mouse "education" that left them playing catch-up until their twenties?
If the information holds up, perp
Ken,
My thinking is that if one isn't in a position to raise a family on their own nickel and are not even legally adult, then one better not be screwing, period.
Not doing something if you can't deal with the consequences. Personal responsibility - what a novel concept.
Yes, they want to screw and yes, some WILL screw, but that doesn't make it right or desireable."
Right and wrong based on something other than base desires? It's just not fashionable anymore.
Is it right or desirable for these people to still be children? Shouldn't we be trying to raise them in a timely manner, rather than taking three months off every year of school, blatantly stalling the instruction even when school is in session, and generally trying to drag out childhood as long as humanly possible?
Things really went down hill when we developed a youth culture. The culture of youth should be the act of assimilating adult culture, i.e. becoming adults. Youth culture is never-never land, and who would want to leave that?
We're all driven by our hormones until we reach middle age.
No - we all experience the pull of our hormones, but experience teaches one to deal with them. One who has hormones this year, and didn't have to deal with them last year is DRIVEN by them. One who's dealt with them for a decade is merely called by them.
Hormones don't make teenagers into idiots any more than it makes the rest of us into idiots.
Again, it makes everyone into idiots at first, then they learn (hopefully.)
Well i dont actually agree with the statitory rape laws. I think that if someone is 18 having sex with someone who is 17 is should be considered that. If a 17 year old can be tried as an adult, then why not having a say as to who they sleep with? its only fair right?
Post a Comment
<< Home