[Bacchus]

So this lawyer broad wrote an opinion piece about teacher student sex, and that it shouldn't automatically be a crime. I'd never think that a woman who looks like this could be capable of writing anything I agree with.



But she has, at least in part.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/s...inions_pop

Here are the parts that weren't the typical feminist nonsense.

Quote:

I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized.

and

Quote:

Throughout high school, college and law school, I knew students who had sexual relations with teachers. To the best of my knowledge, these situations were all consensual in every honest meaning of the word, even if society would like to embrace the fantasy that a high school student can’t consent to sex. Although some feelings probably got bruised, no one I knew was horribly damaged and certainly no one died.

and

Quote:

The point is that there is a vast and extremely nuanced continuum of sexual interactions involving teachers and students, ranging from flirtation to mutual lust to harassment to predatory behavior. Painting all of these behaviors with the same brush sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth. Many teenagers are, biologically speaking, sexually mature. Pretending that this kind of thing won’t happen if we simply punish it severely enough is delusional.

Nothing that shocking. And considering that the rest of the article checks off the SWPL/feminist talking points (most of her article is well in line with feminist orthodoxies, as she attacks 'harassment' and repeats the word consent a lot), you'd think that she'd get a favorable response from the DC crowd, with maybe some dissent. That has not happened. The comment section has blown up with such venom, one would assume her article disproved feminist core beliefs such as women reaching their sexual peak at 35 or that up is actually down.

Her article has inspired three thousand comments from assorted spinsters and manginas about how bad the article is. This is the top comment:

Quote:

English_teacher
8/30/2013 8:45 PM EST
Wow. The deeper I got into this article, the more shocked I became. I don't even know where to start. But let's try, shall we...[omitted to preserve sanity]

The normal sources of feminist indoctrination have condemned her, not even for diving in, but merely for dipping her toe into the water.

So chin up, Betsy. You had the courage to say something that made at least some sense. In doing so you pissed off the angry man-hating brigade, and now they are hounding you. Because, according to their logic, expressing any opinion contrary to what scholars write on XO Jane makes you pro-rape.

[Architekt]

Feminism is basically the new religion

[T and A Man]

Well it's only 'shocking' because everyone assumes that it is being viewed from a prism of male teacher, female student and with the demonisation of the male libido, such an outcome can only be viewed as an abuse of power.

As when she says

Quote:

and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Well I can only imagine the 'extenuating circumstances' she has in mind, and it's the teacher being female.

That said, in the height of feminist stupidity and its concomitant hatred of the family, we she re-trace why such a stance was abhorrent even through a patriarchal prism.

No father would ever want his daughter subjet to this. Even at their most intellectually capable, women aren't capable of making mating decisions. One can easily see how they'd be infatuated with male teachers. This is why men had to ask her parents for her hand in marriage, society knew women couldn't be trusted to make wise decisions prior to menopause.

Men knew what was on the mind of other men, sex with minimal investment, post-menopausal women didn't want their daughters devaluing themselves on a fleeting whim of a teacher (or any other whimsical male desire).

To protect women from their own foolishness, we made teacher/student relationships taboo.

[2Wycked]

I fucking loved the top comment.

Commenter makes the assumption sex based on power relations is inherently bad.

That is how it is in America: only the bad and authority figures exert power. I know I beat this drum constantly, but that comment is a shining example of this.

Why the hell is sex based on power differences inherently bad? Does sex have to be some pure, mythical concept based on enthusiastic consent of the two or more parties based on mutual desire? Why can't power factor into that? Precisely because only the bad exert power along with authority figures.

Given teachers are seen as authority figures, a teacher expressing their sexuality in a such a way towards their students shatters the ridiculous edification of the educational profession - as such, they treat teachers that have sex with their students as being some horribly evil rapist.

Of course, this approach tracks female interests, so when women have sex with their teachers, they create enough space to treat the sexed students as the evil party. When female teachers have sex with their female students, the stories are either not run or chalks the situation up to homophobia or highly policed in order to ensure a fair hearing for the parties.

As for the commenter stating the generalized observation that the student is ALWAYS harmed is amusing. In a context that runs counter to any feminist theme, that generalization would get shouted down immediately. In this context, since said observation maintains the psychology of the readers, it goes unchecked. Further, why do the teenage adults report so much emotional damage, assuming they are actually reporting it, not being forced to report it? Probably because they have been told what to desire, not how to desire. If they feel a pull towards a teacher or a teacher feels desire for a student, if that runs counter to what they have been told how to feel, they can always fall back on their socialization if the relationship blows up in their face, the situation gets too real or whatever.

All that being said, it is unprofessional to have relations with your students. At the collegiate level, not as much. For high school, it is primarily because we infantilize our teenagers, so to engage them sexually is not good because we don't encourage their growth as an adult. Why would you risk your job because of some young pussy?

It is obvious all the un-used rage of the commenters is on full display. They probably feel so good, standing up against rape. Yet, they are not, because the relations are consensual. What a stance. I am pretty sure the sanctimonious commenters will sleep better tonight, knowing they are slaying the internet beast of rape culture.

Fucking idiots.

[Architekt]

(09-03-2013 01:24 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

I fucking loved the top comment.

Commenter makes the assumption sex based on power relations is inherently bad.

That is how it is in America: only the bad and authority figures exert power. I know I beat this drum constantly, but that comment is a shining example of this.

That is interesting. There does seem to be some kind of distinction between "power" and "sexual power." Why do you think this is? Has it always been like this?

[placer]

The bottom line with Laura Whitehurst is that her "victims" did not feel particularly victimized. For example, here is the trauma one of her students felt having sex with her:

Quote:

'When it happens, you're kind of like, all right, this is pretty badass,' he said. 'You know, my teacher is into me. I was 17 and I was having a good time is what it was.'

source

I mean, let's look at this broad:

   

Cute, athletic. No signs of body fat. A solid 6. Would bang. Would have banged when I was in high school.

Now, if it was a guy having sex with a 16-year-old female student, I would feel very differently about it, and I don't care how cute the guy is. This is where feminists are wrong. Simply biology tells us that men and woman are very different sexually.

The idiots and society who put this lovely young woman in jail for a year are part of the problem, and why the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.

[Samseau]

A better solution is to have teachers be the same sex as their pupils.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

placer Wrote:

The bottom line with Laura Whitehurst is that her "victims" did not feel particularly victimized. For example, here is the trauma one of her students felt having sex with her:

But the female students having sex with male teachers didn't feel victimized either. How could you prove that they were? The female students enjoyed power and experience as much as male students enjoyed a toned body. This idea that female students must have felt victimized (and didn't know what they were doing so they were taken advantage of) because they were female depends on an imaginary concept. The victimization exists only in your head.

To draw a clear line about where enjoyment ends and victimization begins, we would have to entirely ignore the gender and focus only on actual harm, lack of consent, resistance (physical resistance in case of rape) and lasting negative consequences. If we did that, I suspect that we would find out that victimization was roughly equally distributed among both genders, not that it was non-existent for male students and always there for female students as you currently are implying.

p.s. I would have gladly banged that teacher during my high school years and would have in fact felt overjoyed if she took me out of the hell of celibacy. But why would we automatically assume that the female student sleeping with the hot Geography teacher would have felt victimized instead of similarly overjoyed?

[Acute Angle]

(09-03-2013 02:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

A better solution is to have teachers be the same sex as their pupils.

The Catholic Church already tried that. Didn't turn out well.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(09-03-2013 12:51 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Well it's only 'shocking' because everyone assumes that it is being viewed from a prism of male teacher, female student and with the demonisation of the male libido, such an outcome can only be viewed as an abuse of power.

As when she says

Quote:

and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Well I can only imagine the 'extenuating circumstances' she has in mind, and it's the teacher being female.

That said, in the height of feminist stupidity and its concomitant hatred of the family, we she re-trace why such a stance was abhorrent even through a patriarchal prism.

No father would ever want his daughter subjet to this. Even at their most intellectually capable, women aren't capable of making mating decisions. One can easily see how they'd be infatuated with male teachers. This is why men had to ask her parents for her hand in marriage, society knew women couldn't be trusted to make wise decisions prior to menopause.

Men knew what was on the mind of other men, sex with minimal investment, post-menopausal women didn't want their daughters devaluing themselves on a fleeting whim of a teacher (or any other whimsical male desire).

To protect women from their own foolishness, we made teacher/student relationships taboo.

"Well I can only imagine the 'extenuating circumstances' she has in mind, and it's the teacher being female."

Exactly. The whole reason feminists dreamed up the "automatic rape" and "abuse of power" concepts was to make men's actions a slam-dunk conviction.

Now that females are being caught up in the web they've spun, feminists like this writer are furiously backpedaling, saying there needs to be "room for nuance" in the laws.

"Nuance" = men get convicted while women get off scot free with book deals. Whenever feminists in the media appear to be being reasonable, look for the Trojan Horse. In this case, I believe it's that they're really only looking for "nuance" when it's a female perp.

[Samseau]

(09-03-2013 05:48 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 02:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

A better solution is to have teachers be the same sex as their pupils.

The Catholic Church already tried that. Didn't turn out well.

The Catholic Church prohibited it's teachers from having sex. As a result only gays volunteered to become Priests.

Orthodox Church lets it's priests bang their wives as much as they want to, and sex scandals are a total anomoly there.

It's obvious that same-sex education is the way to go.

[eradicator]

At what age should it be a crime to have sex with your student? 18?

Clearly there should be some minimum age where it should be classified as a crime to have sex with high schoolers.

[eradicator]

edit

[Nolecbo]

(09-03-2013 11:53 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"Well I can only imagine the 'extenuating circumstances' she has in mind, and it's the teacher being female."

Exactly. The whole reason feminists dreamed up the "automatic rape" and "abuse of power" concepts was to make men's actions a slam-dunk conviction.

Now that females are being caught up in the web they've spun, feminists like this writer are furiously backpedaling, saying there needs to be "room for nuance" in the laws.

My Thoughts exactly, you beat me to it.

Quote:

To draw a clear line about where enjoyment ends and victimization begins, we would have to entirely ignore the gender and focus only on actual harm, lack of consent, resistance (physical resistance in case of rape) and lasting negative consequences.

Coercion ("sleep with me or I will flunk you from class", etc) I would also count as rape.