This boy is not a 'victim'. He was not 'victimized'.
That's the difference. For a girl, she would regret for the rest of her life having had a fling with a teacher.
Not so for the boy in this case.
That's the difference. For a girl, she would regret for the rest of her life having had a fling with a teacher.
Not so for the boy in this case.
Why do you say that the boy is not the victim? What reason can be given to support the assumption that he will not feel undifferentiated regret or shame over this for the rest of his life? For example, is this something he would unhesitatingly disclose to a prospective bride? Is this something he will remember at his wedding day, assuming he gets married?
Cordially,
"Not so for the boy in this case."
Unless he had morals, and later, when he got control of his hormones with a little age on him, he wanted to be a virgin for his wife. (There are plenty of such moral people out there.)
Or he caught a disease.
Or became a daddy at 14.
He is victimized.
Assuming no one was caught or got knocked up, why would a girl regret a fling with a hot hs teacher and a boy wouldn't? She might also look back on her hs yearbook and get a smile fondly remembering when.
Didn't you have any teachers married to their former students in your high school? Don't think this is that uncommon. But its the age that's the problem. In most states a 16 year old can give consent and a 14 year old can't.