Jenell Paris asked me if I had anything to say about last Friday’s wedding of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau. Most folks are familiar with their story; if not, the facts of the case are summarized in the hyperlink before this sentence:
The couple first met when Fualaau was in the second grade. Their relationship became sexual when he was 12 and she was a 34-year-old married mother of four, a teacher at a suburban elementary school.
Letourneau was pregnant with Fualaau’s first child when she was arrested in 1997. She pleaded guilty to second-degree child rape and was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison, with all but six months suspended.
Within weeks of her release, she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car and ordered to serve the remainder of her sentence. She gave birth to the couple’s second daughter while serving time.
Letourneau also left her husband and children (from her first marriage) to pursue a relationship with Fualaau. Jenell wrote:
I watched coverage (of the wedding) on Access Hollywood or ET or something like that, and it was soft-focused with people weeping and nice music playing. It was spun as a "love conquers all" story. I haven’t heard any commentary about her rejection of her other biological children or her husband, or of what it means to continue a sexual relationship with a person who had been a child when it began. I just think that if a man had impregnated a 6th grade girl twice, and then later married her, the public view would be very different. I don’t think people really believe that a boy can be abused, or at least that it isn’t as serious as when a girl is abused.
Let me say first that I’m not an expert on the facts of the case. Let me say also that my first inclination is to celebrate whenever two people (especially two who already have children together) choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other. Given where they both are now in their lives, I’m not sure that this wasn’t the right thing to do.
That said, count me in the corner of those who believe that young boys can indeed be the victims of sexual abuse, regardless of the sex of their adult abuser. But the Letourneau/Fualaau case raises some interesting questions (beyond presenting a challenge for those of us who can’t handle all those many vowels). While still a junior high school student, Fualaau fathered two children with Letourneau. Obviously, in order to impregnate her, he had to get an erection and ejaculate. Presumably, he experienced considerable physical pleasure. For some people, I suspect that it is this assumption of pleasure that makes it difficult to conceive of him as being a victim to the same degree as seventh-grade girl who was raped by an older male teacher! Even I, when I first heard of the case, wondered if I ought to be as concerned for Fualaau as I would have been for a girl. Wasn’t his orgasm — which was necessary for a child to be conceived — proof that he "enjoyed it", and if he "enjoyed it", was he truly a victim? Fear not, I’ve progressed past that, but I know that many folks are "stuck" there.
One of the most common misconceptions about the sexual abuse of children and adolescents is that only the adult abusers experience sexual pleasure. We assume, often wrongly, that female victims of sexual molestation never experience arousal or orgasm as a result of their abuse. Certainly many, perhaps even most, young women who are molested — particularly those who are forced into intercourse — find the experience painful and completely unpleasurable. But the literature suggests that a certain number were excited by their abusers. Indeed, I’ve been told by my friends who work in this field that this often makes things worse: a child who experiences some degree of pleasure at the hands of his or her abuser may be all the more likely to blame themselves for what happened. Those who experience excitement as a result of their abuse may be particularly likely to re-enact abusive situations when they become sexually active as adults.
Abusers, I’m told by my friends at Men Can Stop Rape, often try very hard to arouse their victims. They do so for obvious reasons, the most salient of which is that their victims’ pleasure works to alleviate the abusers’ guilt: "She/he liked it! I didn’t really hurt them!" Again, I don’t know the facts of the Letourneau case, but I suspect that her pregnancies may have served that function in her mind and in the mind of many casual observers. For too many of us, pleasure and orgasm are inconsistent with sexual violation. But to assume that pleasure and orgasm are always acts of volition is to defy practically everything we know about adolescent development, sexuality, and power.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad Letourneau went to jail. I’m glad that the state did see her actions as criminal. But the fact that she deserved to be punished does not mean that I oppose this marriage. I wish this couple well. I hope they have a lifetime of joy together. I wish that joy on every married couple, particularly those with children. Relationships that begin with colossal asymmetries often undergo a surprising shift over time, usually in the direction of levelling out the imbalances. For their sakes and the sake of the little ones, I hope it will be so for these two! But their future happiness and mutuality does not erase what was done, and it doesn’t change the fact that a very young boy was violated on a number of occasions. And the fact that Fualaau enjoyed, perhaps even delighted in, his own violation does not mitigate the severity of what it was that was done to him.
Very good post and I agree with you, I do believe, 100%. Pleasure can’t be considered “consent”, something I know all too well since I was assaulted by someone I (embarrassing as it is to admit it) initially thought was my boyfriend crawling into bed with me. Consent is a sticky issue–for instance, can you say that someone “consented” to have sex if they do so while being deceived? That’s a tough call–for instance, I find it utterly reprehensible to lie about birth control usage by poking holes in condoms, swearing you are on the pill when you’re not, claiming to have a vasectomy if you don’t, etc., but is it sexual assault? What about claiming you aren’t HIV positive but you are and you transmit the disease? Consent is hard enough to define without conflating consent and pleasure. Sometimes I’ve had bad sex but I certainly consented to it, for instance.
What a horrific experience you relate, Amanda!
I like the way you put it: “Consent is hard enough to define without conflating consent and pleasure.” Amen.
Obviously, now that they’re both consenting adults and she’s paid her debt to society, etc., etc., it’s hard to come up with a good legal reason to oppose this marriage that wouldn’t commit government to a fair bit more paternalism than I’m comfortable with. And there’s also no point in wishing two such troubled people ill-will. So I don’t actually have any quarrel with your post. But….
As you know well, adults with significant roles in the lives of children shape those children. Their interaction with them plays a role in making them who they are. I can’t help but think that while your first inclination is understandable, I can’t join you in finding much to celebrate in the marriage between a childhood sexual abuse survivor and his victim. And I do think that you (and I, and much of society) would have a more negative gut reaction if the gender roles were reversed. There are perhaps good reasons for this, but bad ones too.
Hugo, I see this just as you and Amanda see it. It seems that the public (or at least some significant section of them) sees it differently. If Jenelle’s description of the network coverage of the story is at all correct, then there are some serious issues raised. Jenelle raised the issue this way: “I don’t think people really believe that a boy can be abused, or at least that it isn’t as serious as when a girl is abused.”
Is there good reason for Jenelle to get this impression?
I agree with Hugo, Mary Kay Letourneau deserved prosecution even though her student experienced an orgasm. I think the key issue here is ‘his age’, this was not a consenting adult. She was totally irresponsible to have a relationship with a boy that age! You have to consider the consequences of your actions before you leap into a relationship with an age differnce like this one. What was she thinking?? This was a totally irresponsible act on her part and a violation of her ethical position as his teacher.
Is there good reason for Jenelle to get this impression?
I think it’s totally clear that most people don’t take heterosexual statuatory rape of little boys as seriously as they take heterosexual statuatory rape of little girls. It’s a symptom of the double standard: a girl who has had sex is defiled, while a boy who has had (straight) sex is lucky.
I suspect that feminists, who are much more aware of and critical of the double standard, are a lot more likely than the mainstream culture to see Mary Kay Leturneau for the rapist that she is.
Stanton, here I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my MRA friends. Little boys can be victimized every bit as much as little girls can be, even if that victimization may take place in different ways and even if, perhaps due to biology, they may be more likely to experience physical pleasure from some element of their abuse.
We do a terrible disservice when we promote myths of male invulnerabilty.
I agree with djw. I don’t want an overbearing paternalistic state barging in at this point considering Vili is an adult but I worry about the effects the parents’ relationship and its history will have on their/her kids. I find nothing in this so called “marriage” to be joyful about. She broke a covenant in her first marriage to start this relationship, she broke her moral/ethical obligations as a teacher and her selfish actions led to her kids losing their mother in a time when they needed them (her first marriage falling apart).
I have no doubt if the sexes were reversed, there would be no end of condemnation of the male teacher and the marriage (probably still have ET, inside edition etc. sleazing it up) or it would never happen. The guy would still be in jail, and the girl have been taught to hate her abuser. I’m tired of the whole, “oh boys aren’t hurt by it, they fantasize about it anyway!”. Yeah, and so do girls. Doesn’t make it right for adults to take advantage of them or that they’re ready for that responsibility, just because they’re walking bags of hormones aka “young, dumb and full of cum”.
First of all, Hugo’s comment “Let me say also that my first inclination is to celebrate whenever two people (especially two who already have children together) choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other.” doesn’t square with his record re. his Pluss commentary. In that case, he certainly was not “celebrating” her choice to pair up with him, therefore Hugo that statement is quite hypocritical.
Next, as hard as it might be for some to believe, having an erection is not always a “choice” (i.e., men cannot always control/choose when and when not to have an erection). Indeed, men often get erections when they are the victims of violent physical and mental trauma (e.g., severe car wrecks, torture, etc.), and ejaculation is similar. With the proper stimulation, whether or not it is voluntary, enjoyable, etc., in healthy, properly-functioning males ejaculation is inevitable. One sees this e.g., on farms when steers are captured, restrained and stimulated (electrically and otherwise) to collect sperm for use in artificial insemination of cows; the steers are most definitely not enjoying the experience. Therefore your presumption that “he experienced considerable physical pleasure” is false (Hugo, you’re a historian and women’s studies wonk, so leave the anatomy and physiology to those of us who study it for a living.).
Also, consider the tremendous power differential between the two, not just when he was 12 and she was ~35, but continuing thereafter. Feminists have argued that no reasonable, legitimate consent can ever be given under such circumstances. That makes this a clear case of multiple rape; she should be in jail for decades, not years.
Thus, I think that not only Hugo’s response, but the response of society in general, is profoundly hypocritical. Like Jenell et al., I think that if the sexes were reversed there would be a much different reaction, and the adult male would likely be enjoying decades of the much-touted “male privilege” we all hear about while looking at the outside world through the bars of his prison cell. That is, if he survived prison, which is unlikely for men who sexually abuse children (aka pedophiles).
Mr. Bad, if you’re interested in comparing adolescent boys to steers, we really have no common ground for further discussion. Stanton (”I see this just as you and Amanda see it”) is clearly a reasonable and thoughtful representative of MRAs, you, I’m afraid, aren’t.
When and if Professor Pluss marries his fiancee, I will indeed celebrate that. A marriage is a cause for celebration, but it doesn’t mean that the circumstances which led to that relationship are always worth celebrating.
Oh, and I forgot to add this, but FP beat me to it, so I’ll just say that I agree 100% with him/her re. the profound betrayal that LaTourneau perped on her first family. There should be no end to the shame that society heaps on her for that, let alone her exploitation, rape and abuse of Fualaau.
Oh please Hugo, that’s ridiculous. I was clearly referring to mammalian physiological response to make the point that not all erections and ejaculations are “pleasureable.” Stop trying to hide behind some lame Strawman.
Mr. Bad:
There are ways to make your points, some of which are quite important, without charges of hypocrisy and ignorance. You lose credibility and audience when you constantly express in tones that are “sneering.”
Stephen
Hugo said: “When and if Professor Pluss marries his fiancee, I will indeed celebrate that. A marriage is a cause for celebration, but it doesn’t mean that the circumstances which led to that relationship are always worth celebrating.”
So Hugo, would it make it better in your mind if Pluss’ fiancee was 25 years younger than him, and he exploited and raped her before he married her, just like LaTourneau did?
Stephan,
You’re correct, of course. Sorry to one and all. However, the blatant hypocrasy, sexism and female chauvanism I encounter around places like this gets on my nerves.
I think (and I’m mildly shocked I’m saying this) Mr. Bad isn’t exactly being treated fairly in this particular conversation. I strongly suspect his point about the physiology of erections is irrelevent in this particular case (that is, I suspect that MKL’s manipulations of the situation had the 12 year old playing the role of willing participant), but doesn’t seem out of the bounds of possibility. The commentary on steers, I thought, was illustrative in a much more limited sense than to be taken as an allegory the way Hugo took it.
Sally: Thank you for your input. I confess that I expected a certain amount of acceptance of this double-standard from the feminist camp, or else outright denial that a double standard disadvantaging males could exist in our society. You have demonstrated otherwise, and I thank you.
Hugo: I’m glad to be on the same side with you on an issue! Do I understand, then, that you would support an initiative put forward by MRAs to require equal treatment under law for male and female perpetrators? I believe that finding some common causes to support could be very healing.
Mr.Bad: Persons who disagree with you do not have to be your enemies. It is not helpful to assume that they are. For example, there is no need to jump straight to accusations of hypocrisy when you detect an inconsistency. Perhaps it can be clarified, as in this case, but if not, then by remaining civil, you have an opening for making a case that will actually be HEARD. I happen to agree with you most of the time, but often I wince at the tone you take. I guess I have hopes that fora such as these can serve to build bridges, rather than simply provide a place for debate. Does any of this make sense to you?
An interesting point came up hos mig: is the distinction between boys vs. girls, or between penetrators and penetratees? Or is it more about the gender of the perpetrator? We don’t have much trouble condemning NAMBLA, after all.
Mr.Bad: I see that I was not the only one to address this, and you have answered. Still, Hugo made it clear how he feels about rapists, male and female. I don’t get why you would ask if Hugo would think adding rape and a greater age disparity would improve matters.
One sees this e.g., on farms when steers are captured, restrained and stimulated (electrically and otherwise) to collect sperm for use in artificial insemination of cows; the steers are most definitely not enjoying the experience.
Uhm, Mr. Bad? If you can manage to collect sperm from a steer, would you mind letting me in on the secret? I could make LOTS of money with that one. Scientists might be interested in the technique, too.
Now, as to the couple being discussed, it is my hope that they are not in an abusive situation, but there is no way that any of us can determine that. That being said, if she’s turned her back on her older children, I’ve opinions that don’t sit well with my faith. Having helped two of our four children through severe abandonment issues, I have quite a bit of difficulty dealing with parents who abandon their children. Being a mother, I have even more difficulty when the abandoning parent is a mother, especially when three of our four children were abandoned by their mothers.
yami: Perhaps you are on to something. If you want to see a royal double standard at work, think about the celebrated Vagina Monologues, where Ms. Entsler relates the story (true story, she once insisted) about “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could”. It’s the story of a rape, similar in many respects to the rape that is the topic here. An older woman took a thirteen-year-old girl into her house, convincing the girl’s mother that it was a harmless sleepover. But that night, she plied the little girl with alcohol, and seduced her. When the girl’s mother called to check on her, she was out of breath from the intensity of the sexual activity. “Why are you breathing hard?” the mother asked. “We’re exercising,” the little girl responded. And at every performance, the audience laughs with amusement.
Now imagine the same audience, viewing an identical scene in every respect, except the two persons are a priest and a thirteen-year-old altar boy. Not so amusing now, right? Well, wake up people: RAPE IS NEVER AMUSING! And these double standards need to go. But it won’t happen in this case. VM is a sacred cow, and the rape is blessed by millions.
Well, Caitriona, I spent much of my childhood on a northern California ranch. It embarrasses me (and should embarrass others too) that we didn’t catch the distinction between steers and bulls! Having sat through more than one castration myself (and having watched as my stepgrandfather did the cutting), I (and a certain someone else) ought to be clearer. Our bad.
In his comment above, Stanton has begun to bring in cows. I sense a trend.
Can we all agree to leave animal husbandry out of this thread?
Oh, and as far as Letourneau’s family is concerned, the article I link above says:
“Letourneau’s teenage daughter, Mary Claire, from her earlier marriage, was maid of honor….”
That tells us that some kind of healing has likely taken place.
stanton asked: “Mr.Bad: I see that I was not the only one to address this, and you have answered. Still, Hugo made it clear how he feels about rapists, male and female. I don’t get why you would ask if Hugo would think adding rape and a greater age disparity would improve matters.”
Because, stanton, in Hugo’s original post re. the Pluss case, his issue was about the age difference between the two (as witnessed in his comment that he hoped she was of “non-traditional age” or something like that), and in that case both people are adults. In this case, age is one issue, along with exploitation, abuse and statutory rape. Therefore, if Hugo is truly an egalitarian, if we made the cases much more similar (via adding exploitation, abuse and statutory rape to the Pluss case), then I would think that Hugo would soften his view of the Pluss case. Unless of course the Pluss case wasn’t really about age and the power imbalance that goes with it, but about something else that was unstated in the thread.
There is no evidence or even rumor (that I know of) re. rape in the Pluss case, yet Hugo remains much harsher towards Pluss than he does LaTourneau. I think that, plain and simple, this is due to (biting my tongue, trying to be nice) bias based on the gender differences between the two cases. And Hugo seems to not be sticking to his stated principles vis-a-vis rape because he is apparently willing to accept - or at least forgive - rape when a woman perps it on a boy, (who was a minor no less) and move on to “celebrating their lifetime committment to each other.” I see a double standard there. He seems to want to rationalize it by assuming that the boy “enjoyed” it (which as I tried to point out, is not a valid assuption if you’re basing it on the simple fact that he ejaculated), but the same argument was used against female rape victims back before we got serious about prosecuting rapists. Defense attorneys in those cases argued that the woman dressed provocatively, led the guy on, probably enjoyed it, and therefore was “asking for it.” I see Hugo making very similar arguments here and I’m not buying them.
And again, I apologize to Hugo et al. for being so harsh, but this really seems to be an unfair case of double standards.
Finally, Caitriona (Mr. Bad blushing bright red): I guess I meant a bull, right? Kinda like taking sperm from a gelding, eh? I admit it, I’m no rancher, but my point wasn’t semantics, it was male mammalian physiology.
Hugo, I was wondering just what kind of ranching your family did when you didn’t catch that. ;-)
I’m in the middle of reading an article I pulled up after I read your post. It gives some interesting background to the story. Haven’t gotten as far as the wedding yet.
Her daughter was maid of honor? Yes, I suppose that would imply some healing. And we don’t know the entire story, I suppose. It’s possible that there was abuse in the family, and the children support her departure, even if the relationship to which she fled was a bit weird. None of this excuses the rape, of course, no matter what the unknown facts are.
And my bovine reference was illustrative of an attitude, and had no animal husbandry aspect at all - but I will honor your request to abandon it for now.
I understand the topic to be “societal attitudes toward rape victims” and it was extended to include rape perpetrators. Other than the bull ’stuff’, I believe things are pretty well on-topic.
Hugo noted: “Oh, and as far as Letourneau’s family is concerned, the article I link above says:
“Letourneau’s teenage daughter, Mary Claire, from her earlier marriage, was maid of honor….”
That tells us that some kind of healing has likely taken place.
Either that or there are some serious psychological problems that have developed in that family. Could it be the result of the daughter realizing that the mother who abandoned her when she was young is a child molestor, rapist and is now marrying her victim? Seems like a possibility to me.
Mr. Bad, I once had a 16yo male student who was totally convinced that one can milk a bull. Of course, he was from inner-city Chicago, and we were at a Christian correctional facility “Out In The Middle Of Nowhere” in Arkansas. That was an interesting conversation.
I don’t like making presumptions about situations such as the one being discussed, if further info is at all available. If the article I’m reading is correct, your assumptions are pretty well false. It reads like this kid, although far too young for an adult relationship, was *not* the least bit naive. The biggest problems I see thus far are 1) the age difference, 2) the teacher-student issue, and 3) the unhealthy environments each was in prior to and during their relationship.
Mr. Bad, my assumption that Vili enjoyed sex with Letourneau was not used to excuse her behavior! Read the last sentence of my original post:
“And the fact that Fualaau enjoyed, perhaps even delighted in, his own violation does not mitigate the severity of what it was that was done to him.”
How much clearer do you want me to be?
Do I think Prof. Pluss belongs in jail? No. Has he committed a crime? No. I am troubled by a man in his fifties dating a college sophomore, on the assumption that that sophomore is of the traditional age of college sophomores. But though I think such an age disparity (50 and 19) might be unwise and unhealthy, I don’t think it ought to be illegal. I do think what Letourneau did was illegal and I was glad she did time for it. When it comes to how much time — that’s not my concern. Trust me, I’m a bleeding heart liberal; I don’t think most sex offenders deserve draconian sentences.
Mr.Bad: Let me take your position, and give it a try:
Hugo, it appears to me that you are judging Prof. Pluss more severely than
you are Ms. Letourneau. Yet she is a child-rapist, and the professor is
merely in a relationship with a larger age-difference than you feel is
appropriate. Is this correct?
What do you think? Might this work for you?
BTW: Your suggestion about the psychological problems in the family sounds very much like a strong possibility to me.
Mr. Bad, you’ve drifted off here. The boy is a man now and he clearly believes his relationship with the woman a positive one and he’s marrying her. His sexual encounters with her were clearly pleasurable and voluntary or he’s the best liar in the world. Our entire point is that he was still below the legal age of consent and as such, he was a victim of sexual abuse.
I had a friend in high school who had a relationship with a man more than 10 years older starting when she was 13 that culminated in marriage and a child when she was 17 and of legal age. My reaction to that whole thing was exactly what Hugo’s is to this–creepy and criminal but she chose to marry someone who was legally her abuser after she reached adulthood, so I sucked it up and congratulated her.
Amanda: How did your friend’s husband avoid prosecution?
The vast, vast majority of statuatory rape cases aren’t prosecuted, stanton. Even more so in cases where no one is pressing charges.
I knew that the comments, “I think that if the sexes were reversed there would be a much different reaction, and the adult male would likely be enjoying decades of the much-touted “male privilege” we all hear about while looking at the outside world through the bars of his prison cell. That is, if he survived prison, which is unlikely for men who sexually abuse children (aka pedophiles),” were grating on my nerves for some reason, but it took me a bit to remember why. Then I realized that it’s that it’s not been all that long since a grown man with a younger girl was simply a scandal, if that (depending upon where one lived). Remember Jerry Lee Lewis?
In 1957, while still married to his second wife, he married his 13-year-old second cousin, Myra Gale Brown. The scandal that followed all but derailed his career. Despite his tarnished reputation, and lack of play on the radio, Lewis performed in concerts continually, touring at times with such British bands as the Yardbirds and the Animals.
Things like this still happen today, but they’re kept pretty quiet, for the most part. The differences with the “Mary Kay and Vili” marriage is that she 1) should have said “no” when he was 13 and she was his 34yo teacher, and 2) it hit the news.
Hugo posted: “Letourneau’s teenage daughter, Mary Claire, from her earlier marriage, was maid of honor….”
That tells us that some kind of healing has likely taken place.
And Mr. Bad responded: Either that or there are some serious psychological problems that have developed in that family. Could it be the result of the daughter realizing that the mother who abandoned her when she was young is a child molestor, rapist and is now marrying her victim? Seems like a possibility to me.
After what I read about the case, it seems that the mother didn’t abandon her older children, but rather, than their father took them and distributed them to relatives when he found out what she was doing. The articles I read also contained mentions of unhealthy home environments for both parties involved. I know that’s not a good excuse, but it does explain a bit, at least to me.
From what I understand, Letourneau’s kids lived with their father at times or were sent to relatives to avoid all the press and scandal. What I mainly meant in regards to her abandonment of her kids was that, she did something selfish, illegal and stupid that took her away from her kids for 7 years, especially in a time of need (the first marriage falling apart). Perhaps its a touchy subject with me, as my father, after my folks split decided alcohol, friends and money/work were more important than his son. Did she have a son from the first marriage? I don’t know if its been mentioned if he was there.
I really hope the best for the kids, and Vili to an extent (I just think he’s crazy and blinded by what happened, but thats IMHO). That at least they have happy productive lives (and heal) but there is no way I can support that marriage. It just seems “wrong”.
On yami’s point: “An interesting point came up hos mig: is the distinction between boys vs. girls, or between penetrators and penetratees? Or is it more about the gender of the perpetrator? We don’t have much trouble condemning NAMBLA, after all.”
Interesting point, which goes back to Sally’s statement of the double standard that exists. It should be about the abuser/perpetrator and their victims, not penetrators (which are not solely male on female either).
Stanton, relationships between older men and very young teenage girls were tolerated in my extremely conservative community as long as the girls in question were faithful girlfriends. Sleeping around, of course, was gossip fodder no matter the age of the woman.
Amanda said: “Mr. Bad, you’ve drifted off here. The boy is a man now and he clearly believes his relationship with the woman a positive one and he’s marrying her.
Amanda, you’re ignoring the fact that he was abused at the age of 12 by an adult who was (at least) 20 years his senior at the time. Surely he bears profound psychological scars from that abuse. To pretend that he’s a ‘normal, unaffected, ordinary’ guy is IMO naive and disingenuous. Given the fact that you apparently dimiss the history I describe above, when I hear you say that “he clearly believes his relationship with the woman a positive one,” I have to believe that at the very least you have no compassion nor sensitivity for the victim in this case. Have you ever tried to talk with a real, honest-to-goodness young man about love, etc.? Despite what some feminists might say, young men are fully human, sensitive adults who are profoundly affected by such things. There is no doubt in my mind that what transpired in the past has a significant, probably central role in how he is responding to LaTourneau now. In fact, I have no doubt that it’s quite possible that the power dynamic is still in play and that she is exploiting and manipulating him even now. After all, she’s still 20+ years his senior - no amount of time, “healing,” etc., will ever change that.
Amanda went on: “His sexual encounters with her were clearly pleasurable and voluntary or he’s the best liar in the world. Our entire point is that he was still below the legal age of consent and as such, he was a victim of sexual abuse.”
What proof do you have that his experiences were pleasureable? Are you a mind reader? And if so, why should we think that female rape victims were not similarly enjoying the experience?
“I had a friend in high school who had a relationship with a man more than 10 years older starting when she was 13 that culminated in marriage and a child when she was 17 and of legal age. My reaction to that whole thing was exactly what Hugo’s is to this–creepy and criminal but she chose to marry someone who was legally her abuser after she reached adulthood, so I sucked it up and congratulated her.
That’s convenient, but LaTourneau is over 20 years older and is a convicted rapist. Obviously this is a different situation.
Mr. Bad, you’re being intellectually dishonest. I immediately reinforced my point by bringing up an example of a girl I knew in similiar circumstances to demonstrate that young teenagers enjoying what is legally sexual abuse is actually common to both sexes. Doesn’t make it right, by the way. But facts is facts.
Do I understand, then, that you would support an initiative put forward by MRAs to require equal treatment under law for male and female perpetrators?
Good grid, I’d hope that all of us would be on board with such an initiative.
I don’t agree that all marriages call for celebration, and while the victim is an adult and legally able to make his own choices, I can’t celebrate this one. Let’s not forget that not only was she older, she was his teacher.
To pretend that he’s a ‘normal, unaffected, ordinary’ guy is IMO naive and disingenuous.
Did you, by any chance, read the background on Vili? He wasn’t a “normal, unaffected, ordinary guy” *before* the incident with Mary Kay. He grew up in an unhealthy emotional environment. Have you ever worked with kids from that type of environment? I have, teaching in a Christian correctional facility full of inner-city Chicago street kids. They’re *not* “normal, unaffected, ordinary” guys.
Mary Kay also, apparently, grew up in an unhealthy emotional environment, and was continuing to live in an unhealthy emotional environment. People who are in such environments tend to gravitate toward one another. While what she did was completely unethical and immoral, on another level, it is also understandable- when one sets aside the age issue. Any time you take two people who are in unhealthy environments and put them together in a situation where they are supporting/bolstering each other, a connection grows.
In this case, he was a young adolescent with the usual adolescent male fantasizing about “doing the teach,” as it was put in the document I linked. “The teach” happened to be very unstable, emotionally. Bad combination, like lighting a cigarette while inside a storage tank that’s in the process of being cleaned. (And yes, people have done *that*, too.)
She should have known better. But apparently, she was far too wound up with what was going on in her marriage to think about what she was heading for with her former student, whom she’d had a strong mentoring relationship with since he was in her 2nd grade class.
Strong emotions let to run wild lead to mistakes, for all of us. Is her mistake any worse than if I yell at my kids when I slip into a depression? Probably not. Both have the potential to cause a major amount of emotional damage. One must be AWARE of the potential for damage to avoid inflicting it. That unawareness is why we have so many families with *cycles* of abuse - it keeps going until someone becomes aware and begins working to fix it.
Amanda, Caitriona, et al.,
I hear you re. reasons why this relationship seems to be more or less ‘on track,’ but I still can’t celebrate it, and in fact, must continue to condemn LaTourneau. She was the adult throughout the whole affair and should have known better.
As for the varied histories of all the parties, this smacks of excuse-making to me. It’s like the domestic violence activists say, “there’s no excuse.” Perhaps I’ve taken that message to heart too well and in fact there are some excuses(e.g., a dysfunctional family background) for certain behaviors? Somehow I doubt that I’d be hearing so many excuses and rationalizations if the genders were reversed.
Mr. Bad,
You have a habit of totally skipping relevant parts of posts, the ones that don’t fit into your preconceived perception of what we’re going to say. For example, you “overlooked” this: That unawareness is why we have so many families with *cycles* of abuse - it keeps going until someone becomes aware and begins working to fix it.
This does not say that there are excuses for dysfunctional behaviors. It says that one must become AWARE of dysfunctional behaviors and their sources, and then one needs work to fix the behavior. Lack of awareness doesn’t EXCUSE dysfunctional behavior, but it *does* help to understand why that behavior continues.
There’s a phrase my husband and I have used with our children as we’ve helped them work through their issues: “If you can’t figure out *why* you’re doing something and fix it from there, FIX THE BEHAVIOR while you’re trying to figure out the reason you’re doing it.” Knowing the source of a behavior is often helpful in addressing it, and the issues that arise from the behavior. One such instance just occurred - the 17yo goes into severe mood swings if he doesn’t eat regularly. He’s refusing to eat this morning. He’s going into a sniping mood. I told him to go eat. In other words, deal with the source of the issue. His behavior is unacceptable, but only by dealing with the source - the low blood sugar - can we effectively deal with the behavior.
Caitriona said re. Mary Kay
“Is her mistake any worse than if I yell at my kids when I slip into a depression? Probably not.”
I’m really quite surprised to read that. I have a very difficult time equating the two.
For Hugo and his “bleeding heart”. I don’t think punishment is Draconian enough for sexual offender dirt-bags. For those of you in California I suggest you check out this site so you know if any of these scum live near you.
http://ag.ca.gov/megan/
And is anyone gonna tackle the Vagina Monologues and “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could” and what could possibly constitute a “good rape”.
Well, I’m sure not going to tackle the Vagina Monologues, because I’ve only ever heard of it second hand from people who hated it (many of whom were probably themselves relating what they’d heard at second hand), and so I have no way of knowing what’s actually in it. If indeed it promotes lesbian child molesting, it is of course very wrong to do so.
Now, on the one hand, I think stanton is right that there is a double standard for statutory rape. I also think that yami’s right that the double standard may have more to do with the sex of the perpetrator than the sex of the victim - somehow I doubt there’d be any celebration to the wedding coverage if it were Father Paul Shanley, in Boston, now finally legally marrying one of his male victims. On the other hand, I think Caitriona’s right that Mr. Bad is reading people’s responses selectively to make everyone sound as if they support said double standard - even when Amanda uses the same standard for a teenage boy and a teenage girl, she gets read as using a double standard.
The article Caitriona links both shows that there is sometimes a double standard - it reports that in California law statutory rape only applies to men having sex with teenage girls, and that courts have upheld that law. On the other hand, it turns out that Washington law is gender neutral here, and that Letourneau did in fact (after she screwed up her first suspended sentence) get the maximum possible sentence. I understand that statutory rape law varies a lot by state, that it sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t treat same-sex cases the same as opposite sex cases, sometimes has “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions and sometimes doesn’t, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if both the law and the evenhandedness of its application varies from one part of the country to another.
As for the matter of her victim’s pleasure - I think it’s pretty clear that he must have experienced some pleasure in their encounters. He is on record as having fantasized about “doing the teach,” he had sex with her hundreds of times, he evidently ejaculated, and he’s now marrying her. You could construct a scenario where she forced him to ejaculate with no pleasure on his part, but that’s hardly the most likely reading of the facts, is it?
But I don’t see why he needs to have not felt any pleasure for her actions to be criminal. I’ve been following the Catholic priest scandals, and in some of the accounts involving teenage girls (yes, there are some girls, as well as boys, molested by priests), the girls report being willing, flattered, taking pleasure in the experience, say things like, “In many ways he was my first love.” Actually, it seems as if the girls are more likely than the boys to report finding these encounters pleasant at the time (probably because, after all, more teens are straight than gay). They’re still victims. They still often suffer long term effects from this abuse of trust and power, by the priests. And Letourneau is no less an abuser, and Vili no less a victim, because he had fantasized about her beforehand.
Thank you, everyone, for keeping this discussion on topic — and Lynn, I agree completely.
Lynn, thanks for researching the claim of a sentencing double-standard for MKL based on gender. I didn’t think there was much to it, I didn’t recall the specific details.
The media coverage of Catholic priest sex abuse scandals focused almost exclusively on cases in which the victims were male, whereas in reality there are many cases of priestly sexual abuse of boys and girls. It’s one of those obnoxious media framing things. Two deviances (from a Catholic perspective) is more tittilating than one. We really need a less grossly incompetent media.
Mr. Bad, I think you might be misreading what “celebrating” a marriage means. The general rule of thumb I follow is that no matter what private reservations I might have, all pregnancies and weddings are officially joyous occasions, and I think that’s what people are saying here. You may secretly think that having baby or getting married is a bad choice for a certain person, but what good does it to criticize?
Hi Amanda,
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that my critical discussion of the LaTourneau case is out of line; after all, I doubt very much that MKL or Fili are trolling here, but if they are, I’m sorry for being so harsh (seems like I’ve already said that a few times in this thread). On the other hand, trust me Amanda, if I were invited to their wedding and chose to attend, I certainly would have enough class to keep my opinions to myself and celebrate the spirit of the day.
Still, while I believe I understand why some here feel that they are not making excuses, etc., for LaTourneau, I think that we might all be able to agree that we are likely willing to extend to MKL more sympathy and understanding than we would were the sexes of the players reversed. We saw that in the Pluss thread, where I saw very few people making any serious attempt to understand and sympathize with Pluss and his (adult) fiancee.
Actually, I think the Pluss thread got turned away from the issue of Pluss and his fiancee’s age/student status. It turned into a “male bias” free-for-all, sadly. I, for one, didn’t see much of a chance (but did see an attempt) to discuss the concern that it would be unethical for Pluss to have his fiancee as a student, the same as it was unethical for MKL to have a relationship with a former (still under-age) student.
It has been pointed out, more than once, that there are often relationships between adult men and teenage girls that are *not* prosecuted, and that often wind up with pregnancy and/or marriage. Where I grew up, these sorts of relationships were usually not prosecuted, unless the parents decided to press charges, whether because they felt that the relationship was wrong on moral grounds or that they simply got angry at the man “dating” their daughter. I had more than one male friend who steered clear away from girls under a certain age, commonly referred to as “jail bait,” due to the possibility of having such things happen.
My question, then, would be why people become so much more irate when the adult is a woman and the teen is a boy, than they do when the roles are reversed?
Hi Caitriona,
I tried my best to keep the Pluss thread on-track vis-a-vis the age issue, but alas, couldn’t get people to go along. However, I don’t recall any mention of her being a student of his, because at that point I would strongly object to the relationship. As Hugo can surely attest to, because of issues re. the power inbalance and conflict of interest, it is highly unethical for teachers/educators to have intimate relationships with their students. But again, there was no mention of Pluss’ fiancee being a student of his, or for that matter even being the same department or program.
You raise a good point re. the apparent double-standard for adult men and women vis-a-vis dating and marrying teen partners. However, I don’t know that people actually do get more irate when adult women do this. I personally think it’s more of a shock because we hear about adult women with teen boys a lot less, so people may indeed respond more vigorously in cases like MKL. However, whether or not it actually happens a lot less I don’t know. The news media tend to be selective when deciding which stories to report and which ones to ignore.
IIRC, Hugo’s concern in the initial Pluss post was that Pluss’ fiancee is a student where he taught, and as such may or may not be a student, and may or may not be far younger than Pluss. Hugo said that he didn’t know, but that those were his concerns, especially the possibility of her being one of Pluss’ students, IIRC.
davejones and stanton: I have not seen the Vagina Monologues, and have not heard or read of this section, “The Little Coochie Snorter That Could”. However, if I had to make a wild guess, I’d say that no one who was clapping was celebrating a rape, but rather fact that a young lesbian girl discovered that she wasn’t the only one.
See, some of the heterosexual people I know had their first sexual experience with someone significantly older than they, but all of the gay and lesbian people I know had their first sexual experience with someone much older. Perhaps it’s different in California, but here in Illinois GLBT teens don’t feel safe “coming out”, probably because it isn’t safe to come out as a teen. Not too many teens want that daily beatdown, y’know?
In speaking to gay and lesbian friends who grew up around here, they were desperately afraid that both something was “wrong” with them, and that other people would find out about their orientation. They didn’t have the opportunity to date or even have conversations with other GLBT youth—everyone was hiding. But they were still interested in sex, just like the heterosexual teens. Predators take advantage of this.
One man I know ran away from home as a teen, because he read about a gay bar in another city (little did he know there were gay bars in this one!). He ended up developing a relationship with an older man that he knew was exploitative; he recognized that the older guy was basically fetishizing his youth. But at the same time, he felt an incredible relief to know that there was a whole community of gay folks, and that he could be a part of it. Unlike heterosexuals, he didn’t have the opportunity to have gay role models growing up. He knew that he was intensely sexually attracted to men, and not women….yet he didn’t have any idea of the range of sexual repertoire available to gay men. He went back home and finished high school, and for that time, still stayed in the closet (except for his parents) for self-protection. But he wasn’t the same paranoid, scared boy that he was when he left, and it wasn’t just about the sex.
Perhaps if we took the stigma away from GLBT youth, fewer predators would be able to take advantage of them. Those particular predators rely heavily on the fact that GLBT youth don’t have dating opportunities, nor do they have easy access to sex education and information that is relevant to their orientation (at least, out here in ConservativeLand, they don’t). If there wasn’t a stigma against GLBT folks, then “The Little Coochie Snorter That Could” would have been between two teenagers, y’know?
One reason people get their backs up more about the older man/younger woman thing is the power imbalance between men and women is exacerbated by the age difference. A younger man with an older woman might have more power in the relationship than with the sexes reversed due to his male privilege. That said, I think the woman in this case appears to be with this young man for exactly the same reason that older men seek out young women exclusively–she wants to wield power over him. And it bothers me, definitely.
The news media tend to be selective when deciding which stories to report and which ones to ignore.
They were more than happy to put Mary Kay LeTourneau on the front page; I don’t see why they would do any differently for other female predators.
Caitriona, the age of Pluss’ fiancee was definitely the issue - “I hope she’s of ‘non-tradional’ age” is a direct quote of Hugo from the initial thread. IIRC nowhere in there did he mention student/teacher dynamics. He did mention Pluss’ politics, but the overall setup was re. age.
Amanda, I don’t buy the “power differential” angle you suggest because when it comes to sexual relations, it’s the woman who has the power, not the man. Therefore I think that your basic premise is incorrect, and therefore, the rest of your argument re. this.
mythago, if you think that this is true, then why have we heard almost nothing about other female predators, sexual or otherwise? Surely you can’t honestly believe that MKL is the only one? We didn’t even hear about Eileen Wournos (a contemporary female serial killer) until the film about her was made, and then IMO it was more to promote the film than to highlight the depravity of Wuornos’ personality and behavior. We heard about Scott Peterson, et al., but Wuornos - not until there were tickets to sell. Nope, I don’t accept your argument and personally think it’s misguided chivalry/PC politics mostly at play re. the lack of news coverage of female predators.
Indeed, women have all the power in the relationships, something we as a culture choose to acknowledge in, say, our naming traditions where men take on their wives’ names. Or something like that.
then why have we heard almost nothing about other female predators, sexual or otherwise?
If your claim were true, then we wouldn’t have heard anything about LeTourneau either; as a female predator, her story would have been buried or ignored. Why, if the media ignores female predators, did she get so much press? It’s a little bizarre to claim that “we” never hear about female predators, except for this one, and she doesn’t count because…uh…it calls the theory into question.
As for Aileen Wuornos, I remember her being front-page news when she was caught, long before Monster was made. Here in blue-state liberal-land, when a young man raised in the Children of God alleged that he had been sexually assaulted as a child by female church members, that story–and his allegations–were also front-page news, with names, details, and evidence put right out there.
A younger man with an older woman might have more power in the relationship than with the sexes reversed due to his male privilege.
Indeed, women have all the power in the relationships, something we as a culture choose to acknowledge in, say, our naming traditions where men take on their wives’ names. Or something like that.
Geez.. someone needs to tell my wife about all this power I have over her. Nobody bothered to mention it to her.
I think there are several things that may cause people to treat statutory rape differently, depending on the sexes of the people involved:
1) The power imbalance issue that Amanda mentions. Actually, this one could work both ways; on the one hand, the adult male/minor female relationship may seem even more lopsided than the reverse. On the other hand, men are supposed to have more power, so maybe in some times and places, the role reversal situation would seem worse (that could explain why Caitriona sees that “people become so much more irate when the adult is a woman and the teen is a boy, than they do when the roles are reversed,” while others of us see the opposite).
2) Underage girls can get pregnant, while underage boys can’t; to the extent that you see underage pregnancy as the main issue, it’s actually rational to treat men abusing girls worse than women abusing boys.
3) Boys are supposed to be always up for sex, while girls are pure and innocent. Traditionally, statutory rape laws actually applied specifically to girls, since girls were the ones who needed their virginity preserved; they’ve more recently been made gender-neutral, as the focus shifts from preserving virginity to protecting all minors from sexual abuse.
4) Women who commit crimes that are seen as unnatural to women (but more natural to men), can, on the one hand, be seen as particularly unnatural monsters, or, on the other hand, be seen as obviously mentally unbalanced (and therefore less culpable than a man would be). You can see both dynamics at work in the difference in how people react to mothers killing their children, versus fathers killing their children. Mothers killing their children tend to be more publicized and provoke more horror, but also to be more likely to be considered insane.
I do think that, overall, people are most likely to be tolerant of women with boys (my perception is closer to stanton’s, here, than Caitriona’s). But this may vary depending on place and circumstances.
Here are a couple of links on statutory rape laws:
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/stateleg/stateleg.html
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2903097.html
There’s variation from state to state in the age of consent (usually 16, 17, or 18, but occasionally as low as 14), whether the law is gender neutral (it looks as if Alabama is now the only state which confines the law to men having sex with girls), and whether age gaps are taken into account. Often, when states have raised the age of consent to 18, they have added some sort of age gap to the law (which makes sense, since an age of consent of 18 and no requirement that the perpetrator be significantly older than the victim would criminalize an awful lot of consensual teenage sex).
Often cited is an Alan Guttmacher Institute study (Sex and America’s Teenagers, New York, 1994, pp. 19 & 22), which found that “Although relatively small proportions of 13-14-year-olds have had intercourse, those who become sexually active at an early age are especially likely to have experienced coercive sex: Seventy-four percent of women who had intercourse before age 14 and 60% of those who had sex before age 15 report having had a forced sexual experience.” I’m not sure whether any comparable evidence exists on how consensual teenage boys report their very early sexual experiences to be.
See, some of the heterosexual people I know had their first sexual experience with someone significantly older than they, but all of the gay and lesbian people I know had their first sexual experience with someone much older. See, some of the heterosexual people I know had their first sexual experience with someone significantly older than they, but all of the gay and lesbian people I know had their first sexual experience with someone much older. Perhaps it’s different in California …
I’ve wondered about this. My experience, coming out in California, was that most of the GLBT people I knew, like most of the straight people I knew, reported having their first sexual experience with someone their own age. And the main exception was lesbians who were molested by men when young. You can imagine how weird this made conservative religious talk of people being enticed into homosexuality by older partners sound. But since then I’ve run into a few stories where the first GLBT experience was with someone much older, and they usually seemed to be coming from people in a conservative religious setting. Which makes me reconsider - maybe the conservative religious folks weren’t making this all up, but rather were interpreting what happened in a completely different setting from the one where I lived? Or else GLBT people whose first homosexual experience involved sexual abuse are more likely to become ex-gay.
it’s actually rational to treat men abusing girls worse than women abusing boys
By that logic, we should “rationally” see sexual abuse of girls who have begun to menstruate as worse than sexual abuse of girls who are too young to menstruate. You can get that 14-year-old pregnant, but not her six-year-old sister, so “rationally” it’s worse to abuse the 14-year-old…right? Yet we don’t.
By “rational,” I only mean that the conclusion follows from the premise. The premise (that underage pregnancy is what it’s all about) sucks, so the conclusion sucks as well. And you’re right; if people really fully believed that, they’d have to believe awful things about abuse of prepubescent children. But I have seen that argument made; probably the reason some people believe it is that at the same time they’re also making the assumption about boys always being up for sex.
Amanda wrote: Indeed, women have all the power in the relationships, something we as a culture choose to acknowledge in, say, our naming traditions where men take on their wives’ names.
That issue is irrelevant now, as the practice started to wane by the 1950s and was mostly gone by the end of the ’70s. Since then it’s been a voluntary choice for women to take their husband’s name or not.
Or something like that.
You mean like men routinely paying alimony to women? That was standard practice in divorce - just like women taking men’s names in marriage was - for about the same period. All in all, I’d say women got the better end of the deal, once again demonstrating women’s power and privilege.
was mostly gone by the end of the ’70s
In the cities, perhaps.
Caitriona wrote: “In the cities, perhaps.”
I don’t believe that the pressure on women in rural areas is anywhere near as bad as is was in the 1970s. At the same time, I also believe that men in the country endure similar burdens: For example, I think that men who live in rural areas and who get women pregnant are more likely than their urban counterparts to suffer intense pressure to abandon their life goals and instead marry the mother, drop out of school and get a job in order to support his new family (analogous to women taking a man’s name, only IMHO a lot more proundly life-changing and coercive).
Men have - and always have had - it just a bad as women have. Feminists have consistently presented a one-sided (and IMO dishonest) picture of these kinds of issues.
Mr. Bad: “For example, I think that men who live in rural areas and who get women pregnant are more likely than their urban counterparts to suffer intense pressure to abandon their life goals and instead marry the mother, drop out of school and get a job in order to support his new family…”
Well, as he should. I’ve got no problem with that whatsoever. Don’t want the consequences, brother, don’t play the game.
It’s false that in rural areas men are pressured to marry women they impregnate.
Here is some information comparing rural and urban single parent families in the southern U.S., that shows 29% of the rural kids, and 28% of the urban kids live in a single parent family.
Dropping out of school to get married is a supremely bad idea, and practically a recipe for poverty regardless of gender.
Hugo said: “Well, as he should. I’ve got no problem with that whatsoever. Don’t want the consequences, brother, don’t play the game.
Actually Hugo, I completely agree with you on this one, and your stance on this mirrors society’s, that being a Draconian, neo-Victorian responsibility for only the male half of male/female sexual relations, while assigning no responsibilities whatsoever (only rights and privileges, like the right and privilege to unilaterally chose to abort the child from the mutual sex act, etc.) for the woman. That’s why I always advise young men to avoid casual sexual relations with anyone other than professionals, i.e., prostitutes. At least prostitutes are honest, up-front and trustworthy about the sexual transaction, something most young, single women in the West most certainly are not. Thus, the best advice one could give young men with the urge to have casual sex is skip the amateurs and con artists and hire a pro - at least you know you’ll be getting a quality product and not risking slavery in our Uber-PC female chauvanist society. This is why, among other things, I advocate for legalizing and legitimizing prostitution. After all, it’s the “oldest profession” and making it legal could only help the men and women who participate. The only people who might be pissed-off by legalization of prostitution are uptight fundamentalists and feminists (is there any real difference between the two?), so why should we give a rip about them anyway? They’re not stakeholders in this, so IMO they should just butt-out.
LaLubu: You backed your thesis with info from a source that is not peer-reviewed (therefore untrustworthy) and funded by agencies that are well-known for partisan social activism. To whit (from the website you linked to):
Our donors and partners — government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and universities — include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the United Nations Population Fund, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Save the Children, the University of Costa Rica, Thailand’s Mahidol University, the Population Council, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Now, even if the info is legit (which I don’t believe it is) at the very best it only applies to southern states, so for those of us who reside elsewhere your argument is invalid. And given the questionable nature of your source, I’m not buying any of it.
Try again.
Ok, so the sources don’t have the Conservative Stamp of Approval ™. These are considered by most folks who aren’t raging John Birchers to be legitmate sources. You think the U.S. Census Bureau is untrustworthy? Most of the papers on rural vs. urban single parents focus on a specific region, but the numbers of rural vs. urban single parents are pretty much the same across the board for the United States.
Anyway, this source is far more trustworthy than the bogus assertion you pulled out of your posterior, which is that rural single fathers are more pressured to marry the single mothers they impregnate. Objective statistics simply don’t back that up. And only a person with absolutely no contact with rural people or small towns would assert that. I would have thought that myth died out long ago, seeing as the jobs that once made such a strategy even possible died out long ago, but, oh well.
You are more than free to bring forth your own “peer-reviewed” studies that correspond with your nonsense assertions. Go ahead, try.
something most young, single women in the West most certainly are not.
Your blanket statements show your biases more than anything else you post. Haven’t you realized yet that blanket statements will get you in hot water in discussions, in addition to seldom being accurate?
Now, I’m wondering… Is the flip side of your assertion that young men in rural areas are more prone to be forced into marriage, that young men in urban areas are more prone to be allowed to impregnate as many women as they wish, with no responsibility whatsoever for the children they’ve fathered?
I’ve a feeling that either of those blanket statements would be false.
“The only people who might be pissed-off by legalization of prostitution are uptight fundamentalists and feminists (is there any real difference between the two?)”
I didn’t think it was possible to offend fundamentalists and feminists in the same sentence.
Stephen
Gosh, Stephen, Mr. Bad managed to do it.
LOL… well, people can’t make up their minds which I am…
But for now, I’m heading for bed. Too many late nights the past few weeks. But at least we got the 17yo and 18yo boys (mostly) moved into their own house today. They’re in hog heaven.
LaLubu, your statements “Ok, so the sources don’t have the Conservative Stamp of Approval ™. These are considered by most folks who aren’t raging John Birchers to be legitmate sources. You think the U.S. Census Bureau is untrustworthy? Most of the papers on rural vs. urban single parents focus on a specific region, but the numbers of rural vs. urban single parents are pretty much the same across the board for the United States.” are classic strawman arguments, therefore I have to assume that you have no real valid, compelling arguments.
It’s not the sources like the Census Bereau that I have an issue with, it’s the selective way that groups like your source cull and spin the primary data. That’s why this would never withstand legitimate peer review. This doesn’t make me a “John Bircher” or other derogatory type. (Aside: Hugo, how come you let your feminist friends get away with such insults? When I and others do such things you censor us? No doubt this is more of that “male privilege” I keep hearing about.)
You continue: “Most of the papers on rural vs. urban single parents focus on a specific region, but the numbers of rural vs. urban single parents are pretty much the same across the board for the United States.” Do tell? And just how do you know this?
And more blathering: “Anyway, this source is far more trustworthy than the bogus assertion you pulled out of your posterior, which is that rural single fathers are more pressured to marry the single mothers they impregnate.”
You need to get with the reading comprehension program LaLubu. I said that rural fathers are more pressured than urban fathers to marry, and said nothing about the mothers in this context. Perhaps you’re projecting vis-a-vis pulling things out of one’s posterior?
“Objective statistics simply don’t back that up.”
And your “objective statistics” are?…
Caitriona, you make a good point about blanket statments, but others have made a few too (e.g., re. wives taking their husband’s names) so I figured I could be allowed the same slack. Apparently not. Anyway, you’re right - sorry about that.
Stephan and Hugo: Obviously I’m a man of serious talent vis-a-vis offending people. ;)
However, the fact that both fundamentalists and feminists respond the same to such statements just might be very strong evidence for my assertion that they are much more similar than they are different, don’t you think?
Mr. Bad, you might have read this post of mine: All in Agreement about Prostitution, Right?
I tried for common ground, and failed.
You need to get with the reading comprehension program LaLubu. I said that rural fathers are more pressured than urban fathers to marry, and said nothing about the mothers in this context.
Huh? I don’t get it. Isn’t that the same statement as rural single fathers are more pressured to marry the single mothers they impregnate.? I mean, if rural single fathers are being pressured to marry, surely the person they’re being pressured to marry is the mother of the child? And not some other random woman?
Mr. Bad,
The difference between your blanket statement and the statement made by La Lubu is that you cited nothing other than your own opinion to support your blanket statement, whereas she cited statistics to back her statement. Then you negated her source of statistics.
If you’re going to ask others for peer-reviewed data, you need to hold yourself to that same standard. If you’re going to negate the statements of others based on their data not being peer-reviewed, then you need to negate any of your own statements that are based on data that is not peer-reviewed.
Go to the Census Bureau website. Rural single men who impregnate rural single women do not get married any more often than urban single men who impregnate urban single women. Ok? And that is crystal clear to anyone who spends or has spent time in rural areas. If you never leave your major metropolitan area, it is easier to harbor illusions about how less-citified folk conduct their lives.
Mr. Bad,
I have to jump in and contradict your assumption that feminists are OK with the Letourneau situation. Every feminist I know, including myself, is disgusted with both Ms. Letourneau and the media coverage this issue has received. My opinion is that the woman is a child abuser, pure and simple, and the fact that she claims to love the victim and has married him does not magically make everything OK. I say this as someone whose own mother was abused by her father, who also claimed that he loved her so much that he just couldn’t help himself. This is standard behaviour for abusers of either gender.
My guess is that the rather lax attitude of the media is indeed because most people are incapable of imagining a boy/man being forced into sex. And yes, that is indeed a sexist belief, and it deserves to be condemned. I think Letourneau should still be in jail.
However, I’m not at all sure how you can conclude that this is somehow the fault of feminists. It is the culture as a whole depicts boys/men as pretty much ready and willing to have sex at all times, and girls/women as disinterested or reluctant. The two ideas are intrinsically linked to each other, both ideas are sexist, and both are harmful to men and women. Feminists didn’t invent or create this part of our culture, and many have in fact actively tried to change these attitudes (unfortunately with limited success, as the typical attuitude to the Letourneau case illustrates). Hard as this may be for you to believe, not everything that is wrong with our culture is the fault of feminism, and assuming that it is does nothing to help solve the problem. Taking the approach that you’re taking here does nothing except alienate a bunch of people who might actually be on your side and willing to work with you on this issue if you could just manage to be civil and stop blaming them for every single thing that’s wrong with the world.
As far as Hugo’s apparent lack of discomfort with this situation compared to the other one, I’m not any more happy about it than you are, and I do wonder if ingrained gender stereotypes are the reason he initially reacted the way he did. As far as why he seems to approve of the marriage, I’m a little puzzled by that too. I don’t like trying to ascribe motivations to other people, but if I had to guess why Hugo seems a lot more approving about this marriage than I think is appropriate I would hazard that his religious beliefs have more to do with it than his feminism does. He believes that marriage is a good thing, especially if a “couple” have children (I’m using the scare quotes because I don’t think that abuser+victim should really be referred to as a couple, but I couldn’t think of any other way to put it). I would say that some marriages are good and some are not, and that this one looks like a very bad thing for the kid. But then I’m not a Christian, so I’m less invested in the idea of marriage anyway.
Hugo - what do you think? I’m guessing religion may be playing a role here largely because I usually find that on the rare occasions I strongly disagree with you the difference usually comes down to religion.
Oh, and one more thing on the that the MRA’s on the board might find interesting. I know I’m going against the feminist grain here, but I can’t stand the Vagina Monologues. Not because I don’t think we should be talking about issues like rape, body image etc, but because I think it’s taking complex issues and dumbing them down to the point where the conversation becomes pointless. It’s not the message it’s the messenger, in the same way that I can see the points Dworkin was trying to make but I really wish she’d chosen a different way to express them. I find VM to be kind of a female equivalent of the whole Robert Bly bang a drum in the woods thing - overly simplistic and kind of embarrasing. Sorry to get off tangent, I got distracted when someone brought up VM.
Oh, funny comment to add about the whole milking a steer thing…when I was in college we once got into a discussion in a seminar group about fox hunting (basically one Tory who was pro, one devoted hunt saboteur, and the rest of the class generally anti-hunting but not as strongly). I was happily backing up the saboteur in his why-fox-hunting-is-bad efforts until he started going on about how the horses were so bloodthirsty when they were chasing the fox, how they wanted to rend it with their teeth etc. Much as I generally support banning fox hunts, I did feel the need to point out that horses are herbivores.