Replies

So, would there be a distinction regarding oral sex, as no possibility of pregnancy there? In another post here a (female)teacher touched a boys penis 'through his pants'. I don't see any chance of a pregnancy there, so why the suspended sentence? Isn't the issue more (or as much as)what psychological damage is caused to the minor? If your public policy is valid, and with it you seem to focus exclusively on the 'burden of pregnancy' issue, then there should be a distinction when that burden is not a factor.
I understand your viewpoint, (for the most part).I just have a different one.

I must not be making myself clear. I raised some public policy reasons for the general proposition that female sexuality must be guarded and protected more than male sexuality. that position is valid for numerous reasons.

It explicitly didn't present the pregnancy issues as the exclusive reason at all. If you reread the posts, I say there are other concerns. I have no idea what makes you think I exclusively rely on the pregnancy issue, when I explicitly state that is one factor and that there are others.

Emotional harm suffered is a different issue, and I don't defend that when it's part of the fact pattern. I also explicitly said that when an abuse of authority issue presents itself, it is an issue.

The public policy point you seem unable or unwilling to cope with is that our culture values the protection of female sexuality more than a male's. That you may have a different opinion is fine - most of the rest of us traditionally have seen and understood the difference.

If the culture and tradition is changing, that's fine. That's civilization for you! :-)