Society is rife with double standards. We all know that. And yet when common sense and full-blooded nature cry out for one — scream for one we can all ‘get behind’– it isn’t there. It’s missing.
I refer, of course, to the double standard by which it would be all right for female teachers to sleep with male students.
Now, some of you will immediately object, citing the so-called inability of a minor to give consent, and the so-called fact that such a teacher who sleeps with a teenage male must be driven by all sorts of pathological reasons to want to sleep with a ‘kid’.
This attitude is nonsense. Believing in this nonsense means falling prey to this country’s national hysteria regarding children, in which the phenomenon of human offspring has been elevated to some sort of cultist object, a blubbery-eyed sacredness which it has never before had. A suspicious mind might suppose that the reason why we Americans have such a pervertedly false notion of childhood’s sacredness is because we ourselves have fallen into such moral degradation that we obsessively cultivate the myth that there is a land of innocence out there strictly inverse to our own new depravity.
Well, there isn’t. Childhood does not participate in the confusion of adult beliefs. And thanks to our confusion, we have thrown time-honored human understanding of our own biological reality out the window.
Here’s an incontrovertible fact: The notion of a ‘minor’ is a legal construct. It is completely obviated by the presence of the male erection. If the argument that a minor cannot give consent is taken seriously, it ignores the fact that a young man actively engaged in intercourse with an attractive female teacher gives tacit consent by a) having an erection; and b) not getting up and leaving. Now, imagine a case where there’s an unattractive teacher and the lad *does* try to get out of there before anything happens. Only the grammar marm is large and pins him down. Clearly, the youth has denied his consent. His lawyers would say as much. Yet, the law considers him incapable of *giving* his consent.
How can a human being be capable of denying consent and yet not trusted to be able to give it?
It is an absurdity. Either a minor is able to give or deny consent, or he is exempt from consent, in which case a minor is a non-volitive object with no rights at all. And no one is likely to advance that premise: all the child rape laws would go out the window.
So, we have a situation where we have to accept that a young man who, in many cases, has had sex with Teacher three or four times, is fully able to give consent. Therefore, there is no societal interest in pursuing these so-called crimes as there is no crime.
Furthermore, it is in society’s best interest to invest in young men all the responsibility we can as early as we can. So, from my standpoint, any relationship between a female teacher and a male student — as long as the female teacher is attractive — is a-ok. We should have stiff penalties for young men who stir up trouble and actually *turn their teachers in* as if they, maybe, sorta, mighta been victims instead of reveling in the triumph of entering into manhood with such a bang.
Of course, the reverse is not true: male teachers who prey on female students are predators and should be prosecuted.
So, as an open call to all attractive teachers: Mount up! Do your civic duty and increase our youths’ self-worth. But please, in the meantime, pick worthy young men who won’t blab it around.