yep...

sexual harrasment in the office is when the person doesn't like your flirting.. otherwise it's okay.

hell I'd have no complaints if one of my female bosses wanted to sleep with me to get ahead... but that's never happened...

You wouldn't have complaints immediatally, but after a short while things can get really wierd. Trust me.

now admit it:

some of us are thinking, "where were these teachers when I was in high school?"

I was going to say- if a hot 25-year-old teacher approached me, she'd have me at "hello".

I don't doubt the possibility, but I'd like to test myself in such situation.

Personally I think that I can separate what I need to separate from it in order to get what I want in return for the sex.

I think some of the responses in here prove the double standard.

Of course there is a double standard and its a damn good one if you ask me.

The laws were written by men (and most likely men who had daughters). We don't know what goes through a woman’s mind, but you hear about the woman being lonely, needing someone, etc, and this is from other women.

As a guy, if you are going to nail a 14 year old its not because you are lonely, its because you want to fuck the kid, period. As men we know what goes through men’s minds and its pure lechery. The old joke about how horrified women would be if they could indeed read our minds is quite true.

We know what drives men and as such we want to protect our daughters and wives from it.

On the other hand being men, we see no harm if such had happened to us. You got to nail the teacher, hurray! I wouldn't feel emotionally scared or used. The only trap is the falling in love one, where you fall for the first girl you nail (which happens to be your teacher), and it doesn't seem that prison stops that based on past history.

So should I wring my hands at the horrible double standard out there, that somehow there is an inequity between men and women when it comes to statutory rape? I'm not losing any sleep over it.

What I find truly fascinating, though not at all surprising...

The woman in this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97483
(not as attractive as the woman in the above story)

Some folks seemed ready string up the unattractive woman... but the attractive woman.. well hot damn she's hot where was she when I was 14 seemed to be the standard reply...

So the double standard isn't really so much men vs women.. it's also what the person looks like..

With all due respect, it is this sort of attitude that made her sentence 3 year's house arrest while a male's sentence would have been 75 years. We can not adopt this mentality and expect change in the legal system. If I was 14 and she did this to me, she raped me and is a child sexual predator. Period - end of story. A male child is still a victim.

I feel oddly comfortable with it staying exactly like it is. Double-standard, sure.. but do I think it'll ever change? Nah. I should probably feel the need to rebel and "fight the man," but in this case -- I think its fine where it is.

I think those were simply off-the-cuffs remark frome people who wouldn't want to have sex with the less attractive woman. In the legal system, I think that so long as the male child was being "raped" merely because of his age and not because he did not consent, the punishment should always be lesser for a female offender.

I'm curious as to why a female who has sex with children should receive less of a sentence than a male. Please elaborate.

*I usually agree with you on most subjects, however I think this is where we part ways :)

Yea I dunno.. I went to type out my response and I realized that .. well I'm not really sure.. lemme think about that one.

If i was getting fucked by a hot teacher, model quality to boot, when i was going to school at 14 or 15, it might have inspired me to care enough to stick around and to better, and i would have kept my mouth shut!. Who knows, wishful thinking i guess. :D

Jinn... I'm waiting :D

Because she is a woman and the victim is male. I say that with all sincerity.

That is why she received less of a sentence than a male. Do you honestly believe that she should have received less of a sentence than a male?
There is the way things are...and there is "the way things ought to be". Penned by a mentor of yours, I believe. ;)

So, the male child consents to sex and that makes it ok for the woman to be a child molester? The female victim throws herself onto a male and it makes him a monster?
You can throw all the little pervy excuses you want. The fact of the matter is that a child molester.... is a child molester.

This subject has been done to death.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ghlight=LaFave

for one...

Sometimes it's just about the harm done.

Example: 1. Woman is punched in the face by her husband one day. She shoots him in the face. Most likely she will receive some sort of sentence, even if something light because of "self defense" (even though being punched in the face isn't a mortal wound).

2a. Woman is punched in the face by her husband, every day, for a year. After a year of it, he hits her one day and she snaps and shoots him in the face. Find me a jury that would convict her of anything, I bet it would never happen.

2b. Woman is punched in the face by her husband, then beaten for 30 minutes or an hour. She fears, though he has made no actual threats to do so, that he will beat her until she dies. She shoots him in the face.

Now, tell me, what's the difference between the first scenario, and 2a/2b? Is it the multiple number of times it was done? Is it the severity of the one time it was done? Yes. It's in the harm that was caused.

If you have a 24 year old male and a 14 year old girl, you will almost definitely see psychological harm from it. Reverse the scenario (24 year old female and 14 year old male) and, although the offense is the same, the actual harm done could realistically be much less. It depends on the person. Should the harm caused and future mental state of the victim be taken into account when sentencing? That's the question.

Here's another: You speed and get clocked at 20mph over the limit. The harm that could have been done because of your speed is what it is. You speed in a school zone during peak time, get clocked doing 20 over the limit, and you get a much, much, much larger ticket. Why? The harm that could have been done is much greater.

That's what I see is at the heart of this whole type of problem.

me too ... still waiting ...

Example: 1. Man is punched in the face by his wife one day. He shoots her in the face. Most likely he will receive some sort of sentence, even if something light because of "self defense" (even though being punched in the face isn't a mortal wound).

--> Doesn't sound right to me now?

2a. Man is punched in the face by his wife, every day, for a year. After a year of it, she hits him one day and he snaps and shoots her in the face. Find me a jury that would convict him of anything, I bet it would never happen.

--> Again I can't see this happening?

2b. Man is punched in the face by his wife, then beaten for 30 minutes or an hour. he fears, though she has made no actual threats to do so, that she will beat him until he dies. He shoots her in the face.

--> Again

Same scenarios, same potential harm, likely different sentences... guys can be abused as well, and a guy doing this is likely to get a worse sentence than a woman abusing a man.