Cheerleading Coach/Teacher accused of affair with male student

DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. (AP) -- An English teacher and cheerleading coach in Douglas County has been suspended without pay after being accused of having a sexual relationship with a teenage male student.

Authorities say they suspended the teacher identified as 27-year-old Kari McCarley at Alexander High School last week after another teacher overheard the boy talking about a relationship with McCarley.

Because of these differences, there is a double standard. Most people understand this intuitively. Only feminists and others who like to pretend males and females are the same would argue otherwise.

So basically what you're saying is, it's OK for boys to have sex, because they don't get emotionally attached. With girls it's wrong, because they do get attached. So the way I read it, the only way nobody gets hurt is if the boys all turn to buggery, and the girls to long-term committed lesbian relationships -- is that what you'd recommend?

Does that about sum it up?

Now let's get serious. If the boys are having casual sex with girls, then obviously somebody is going to get hurt. If not this teacher, then the next girl whose "boyfriend" was taught about the joys of casual sex by this teacher. (Not to mention the teacher's family already being hurt by it....)

Rather than peddling your theories about why there's a double standard, why not focus on teaching the boys to behave properly?

"For one thing girls can get pregnant."

Condom + morning after pill. Now let's mention something else: sexually-transmitted disease. Both can be affected by that.

"If that were the only reason, it would be enough to explain the double standard"

How could that not be used to justify sex with pre-pubescant girls? If they too can't become pregnant, then sex with them is just the same as boys, yes? We both know different.

"little or no harm is likely if a female teacher has consensual sex with an under age boy."

This almost has to be a line from the NAMBLA handbook. Think about what you're trying to do: justify adult-child sexual relations. Have you already forgotten about the Mary Kay LeTourneau case? The boy she had sex with ended up so messed up, that at this point, he's essentially a failure in life with little chance of turning things around.

"Only feminists and others who like to pretend males and females are the same would argue otherwise."

I never said that boys and girls are the same. My argument is, and always has been, that those who violate age of consent laws should be prosecuted, and those who abuse a position of power should be fired and barred from any position of power. This applies to actual positions of power, such as therapist/patient, professor/student, teacher/student, and parent/child. Because of the position of power, it's extremely difficult for the person in the bottom position to refuse the demands of the top for sexual relations.

"So the way I read it, the only way nobody gets hurt is if the boys all turn to buggery, and the girls to long-term committed lesbian relationships -- is that what you'd recommend? "

No. I would recommend both sexes wait until they are old enough to understand the consequences of sex and find someone they can commit too.

"If the boys are having casual sex with girls, then obviously somebody is going to get hurt."

It happens all the time. It is one of the reasons there is such a thing as statutory rape. It isn't nice to take advantage of young girls. Once they are of age, it is presumed they will be old enough to know better.

"Not to mention the teacher's family already being hurt by it..."

The teachers family is the teachers responsibility. They would have been hurt regardless of the age of the boy. Are you recommending adultery be made a crime? It is in much of the middle east.

"Rather than peddling your theories about why there's a double standard, why not focus on teaching the boys to behave properly?"

It isn't a theory. It is a fact. Do you think boys and girls are the same?

Boys should be taught to behave properly. I think the teacher did a horrendous job of that. She should be fired in my opinion, but to claim she hurt the boy in any way is ridiculous.

"How could that not be used to justify sex with pre-pubescant girls?" "This almost has to be a line from the NAMBLA handbook."

Sorry, I thought the boy was 16? If he was prepubescent then of course you are correct. Prepubescent children of either sex should NEVER have sex under any conditions. I don't recommend it for teens under 18 either, my only point is sex isn't likely to harm a teenage boy. It is pretty much all they think about anyway.

"The boy she had sex with ended up so messed up, that at this point, he's essentially a failure in life with little chance of turning things around."

Really? How do you know it was the sex that "messed" him up? My guess is that he was destined to be a loser anyway. What has he done that makes you judge him a "failure"?

" My argument is, and always has been, that those who violate age of consent laws should be prosecuted, and those who abuse a position of power should be fired and barred from any position of power."

My argument is that the double standard exists for a reason. Sex for teenage girls is more harmful than sex for teenage boys.

Men who violate age of consent laws with teenage girls should be prosecuted and fired. Women who do so with teenage boys should probably be fired, but unless the boy has been harmed by the relationship, it is hard to argue that there is a victim, or that she should be prosecuted.

but to claim she hurt the boy in any way is ridiculous

You don't have a very good definition for "hurt," it seems.

I would think that you'd recognize the possibility -- very strong -- that the teacher taught this boy things about sexual behavior that leave him with wrong ideas on the subject. He's now less likely to understand the consequences of sex, much less have a good idea of what constitutes a proper sexual relationship. You said yourself that he should wait until he's old enough to understand -- and this teacher has short-circuited that. Yeah, I'd say he got hurt.

That not only hurts him, but it probably also hurts those with whom he comes into contact later in life. He has learned that sex is cheap, and that it is OK to have sex with whoever is willing. It leaves his life cheapened. I will speculate that his experience will lead him to cheapen others' lives as well.

"I would think that you'd recognize the possibility -- very strong -- that the teacher taught this boy things about sexual behavior that leave him with wrong ideas on the subject."

Unlikely. It used to be customary for a father to take his son to a prostitute for his first time in order to learn about sex. These days most guys learn about it from girls their own age. I have no idea which is better, but peers and parents have far more influence on a persons "ideas" about sex than the first sex partner.

"He's now less likely to understand the consequences of sex, much less have a good idea of what constitutes a proper sexual relationship. You said yourself that he should wait until he's old enough to understand -- and this teacher has short-circuited that. Yeah, I'd say he got hurt."

I suppose if he is a shy mommas boy, your assumptions might be true. In that case, prosecute her. I believe the original article stated that he was upset when he discovered his teacher had been suspended. This argues that he isn't the shy easily manipulated teen you assume.

Most guys lose their virginity between the ages of 15-19. I realize that isn't ideal, but it is reality. If your argument is that all men lead cheap lives because of this or cheapen others lives, then you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

I wouldn't even bother to debate this with you except it makes me cringe whenever I hear about the delicate sensibilities of teenage boys. Your teenage friends must have been very different from mine. My friends were among the rudest, crudest, human beings I have ever encountered. I guarantee that this woman was a step up in companions if his friends were anything like mine. Luckily most teenage boys grow up eventually.

"my only point is sex isn't likely to harm a teenage boy. It is pretty much all they think about anyway."

Your argument is moot in light of the laws in question and the reasons behind the rules for power-position jobs. Age of consent laws generally take gender into consideration. Those are the product of individual states. Often times, a 16-year old male is considered able to consent. As I said before, she should only be prosecuted if she broke the law, assuming this relationship actually happened. Are you saying we should invalidate our age of consent laws? Or that they should be ignored until they're adjusted to your personal standards? Or should we prosecute those who violate the law? The law in Georgia states that the boy can consent at 16 years of age. The obvious question is, however, did the relationship turn sexual prior to his 16th birthday? If it did, she is guilty of statutory rape, and can be sentenced up to 20 years of prison according to Georgia law. See here.

The separate part of the problem is the power relationship between the two. That part of the problem maintains that age and gender are entirely irrelevant. The trouble is that individuals in a position of power have unusual influence over those under them. Again, this isn't about the manager at Wendy's and the cashier; but rather about real power positions, such as a therapist, priest, teacher, or parent. Individuals under the control of people in those positions generally find themselves unable to make informed decisions regarding personal interactions and relationships with the person or persons who have power over them. This is why a therapist is generally barred from any relationship with his/her patients. It doesn't matter if the patient is 50 years old or 15 years old. The power position essentially removes, in most cases, the ability to give informed consent. Regardless of the age of the boy, the teacher has crossed the line and should be fired immediately if the charges are prooven true.

"How do you know it was the sex that "messed" him up? My guess is that he was destined to be a loser anyway. What has he done that makes you judge him a "failure"?"

There's no way to pinpoint a single thing that "messed him up", but one can certainly look at the sequence of events and draw a conclusion that caution is advisable. The kid was in school and getting an education prior to this teacher developing a sexual relationship with him. Following that relationship and the conviction of the child rapist who was just recently released, he dropped out of school. Now he's unable to hold a job and can't even support himself. Someone in his position generally does not get better, but rather gets worse as time goes on. Is it possible he could turn his entire life around? Sure, but it's not likely.

"My argument is that the double standard exists for a reason. Sex for teenage girls is more harmful than sex for teenage boys."

Enforce the laws that are on the books and remove those from power who abuse that power for their own sexual gratification. If you disagree with the laws that treat boys and girls differently, then work to change those laws. Some states set the age of consent differently for boys and girls, while others have it set at the same age.

You've yet to answer my question as to how male teachers who have sex with male students should be treated. Should they be prosecuted? Should they be fired? Sex doesn't hurt boys, right? How about female teachers who have sex with female students? Is that ok as well?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.