This is in no way comparable to a grown man committing a deviant asexual act with a young boy. Nor is it in any way equivalent with a young girl being seduced by an adult male.
There is also the reality, that this teacher has probably already been terribly punished by the stigma. After all, how many women--even the quite promiscuous ones--want to be known for having a thirteen year old lover?! I think that the Judge probably made the right decision, but I admit that I do not know any facts other than what was reported immediately above.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Yes, the newspapers did leave out the graphic details. A techer should not engage in intercourse with a student under 18, period. No ifs ands or buts.
That isn't a question for the child molester to decide.
There is a fundamental difference between the sexes, and to suggest that a teenage boy is damaged by being satisfied by an older woman, is a bit of a stretch.While 13 year olds of either sex may be sexually mature physically, they are not emotionally mature. This was a flagrant abuse of authority. Throw 'er in the slammer.
After all, how many women--even the quite promiscuous ones--want to be known for having a thirteen year old lover?!IMO, there are a lot of single women between the ages of about 38 and 45 who'd be happy with Quasimodo. (Asbestos suit on : )
Since you and I both know that only a very sick adult will engage in this sort of activity, this child will be emotionally involved with a sick adult -- a sick adult who we know has a history of depressive episodes. Do you think it's healthy for him to be burdened with all the personal problems and travails of this adult? And what if she winds up committing suicide, which she very well could? Do you think he's not going to feel guilty about it, blame himself? And the fact that she's (obviously) promiscuous means he will be at greater risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease, one that may not be so easily cured. He could wind up going through life with chronic herpes or even die of AIDS. But no matter what disease he may pick up, he's unlikely to want to tell anybody about it, isn't he? Because then, he will have to tell the rest and he can't really do that, can he? So it will fester while he vainly hopes that it will just go away. And there are many, many more problems this kid will be exposed to. His moral development will be warped to say the least. I can't believe you would take this so lightly.
So if a boy gets infected with an STD by an adult woman, it's less of a problem 'cause he's a boy? Or if a boy's head gets scrambled up by his raging hormones and the toying affections of an adult woman, it's no big deal? Then, if my son - made sexually active by an irresponsible female teacher - turned his sexual "experience" towards your daughter and got her pregnant - there's no reason to think that there are any serious consequences to boys becoming sexually active at a young age. After all, it's only a problem for girls, right?
Yeah, I see your logic.
A 13 year old boy? And sex is simply a matter of self-satisfaction?
I have no doubt that your ho-hum, shallow, callous attitude is common in our pornographic society. That's why we have rampant promiscuity, widespread STDs, huge numbers of abortions, and fatherless families. That is the inevitable harvest of a society that places no greater value or sanctity on sex than you do. Apparently, to you sex is just one more itch to scratch, not fundamentally different than picking your nose or scratching your rear-end.