Mary K. Letourneau freed from prison Wednesday

[icymist]

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 · Last updated 3:35 a.m. PT

Mary K. Letourneau freed from prison Wednesday

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

GIG HARBOR, Wash. -- Mary K. Letourneau walked out of prison sometime after midnight on Wednesday, slipping unnoticed past the horde of people seeking a glimpse of the former elementary school teacher whose seduction of a 12-year-old pupil launched a thousand tabloid covers.

The big question is, where is she going? Some who know her best predict Letourneau, 42, will head straight into the arms of her victim, Vili Fualaau, who's now 21.

"She has a personal need to get back together with him to prove to the world this is a love story and not a crime story," said Gregg Olsen, who wrote a book about Letourneau's case. "Part of Mary Letourneau will never let go of this love."

Although Letourneau's seven and a half year prison sentence ended Wednesday, she's not a free woman. She must register as a sex offender, get counseling and submit to state supervision. Authorities will notify her new neighbors wherever she settles -- though the television trucks will probably tip them off first.

More at this

[gatlingforme]

1. I just don't get it. they are treating this as some kind of Blue Lagoon

love story .... puke... She is a rapist. WTF? She is a sick person who needs medical attention. any 34 yr old who "falls in love" (puke) with a 14yr old kid is a sick human. she screwed his life up in a major way.

[shrike]

3. Can you imagine what they'd have done if she'd been a man?

[HuckleB]

8. She would have had a much tougher time in prison, that's for sure.

Well, I shouldn't say that, since I don't know. Perhaps women prisoners put sex offenders on the bottom of the pecking order, too.

[rman]

4. "rape" implies lack of consent

it seems there was consent in this case, even though it wasn't between two adults.

[HuckleB]

7. A 12-year-old can't give consent to a 34-year-old under the law.

Thus, it is rape.

[gatlingforme]

29. you rape a 14 yr old, you can have consent with -2- adults.

[TheWraith]

50. Only under the legal definition is a 14 year old unable to consent.

It is not as simple as rape, because having consentual sex with a 14yr old--who wants to do it, even if they don't understand the consequences--is a less serious offense than an actual rape. That's why the name statutory rape reflects the legal rather than violent bent of the crime.

[HuckleB]

51. "Only..."?

Statutory Rape is still rape, and sex abuse is still sex abuse. Whether by physical force, or by SO's more preferred method of coercion via well-planned grooming and other tactics.

[Gyre]

91. "statutory rape" is the lay name

for the crime of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". California Penal Code section 261.5 et seq.. It's law based on a paternalistic (not that it's bad) assumption that kids under the age of consent (ie, minors) need to be protected from adults.

My experience is that it's a law that is justifiable based on the unequal experiential databases of minors and adults re: sexual matters that puts minors at a disadvantage in a sexual setting.

Gyre

[HuckleB]

6. Yes. It's clear that this kid continues to struggle with life.

He's now 21, with no high school diploma. He's unemployed. He's still "confused" about her. And she continues to drag this kid along in order to "prove" that it's love. What a joke. He was 12 years old, and now he's been a father for more than seven years. That means he missed one crap load of development along the way thanks to her, among other things.

She is a sex offender, just the same as if she were a male and the child were female. Only, in that case, no one would even give this baloney a second thought. The damage that sex abuse does to children is multifold and horrific. Let's not allow a double standard to paint a false picture of sex abuse for the public.

[gatlingforme]

27. a agree completely. well said

[salin]

97. I agree with your agreement...

[RobinA]

92. One Wonders

how it would have turned out for him had a DA somewhere not decided this was the crime of the century and subsequently pursued these two as if they were Bonnie and Clyde. Probably no worse.

[HuckleB]

98. So we should decriminalize sex abuse of minors?

:eyes:

[progressivebydesign]

20. I'm not condoning her in the least..

.. but I can't help but think about how long humans married and mated at 12 and 13, then it crept up a bit to 15 or 16, then in the Victorian times, it moved up further. She definitely needs help.. but the prison she served in is not the typical warehouse type. She got counselling there, and did a lot of community service. Her children, by the boy, visited her often, and she has a great relationship with them. Sounds like, from the info on her father, she didn't have the best of examples.

I hope everyone in this drama gets the help they need, and can move on. Her children, living with his mother, are the ones who will suffer the most when the media trails them around. To the media, it's another sordid sex tale, but to the kids.. it's nothing short of their life.

[HuckleB]

21. You forget that she would have been dead already in those times.

34 was ancient when folks married that young. Nevermind what we've learned since about development, or about what we know of the history of sex abuse in society, basically being condoned, or, at best, ignored. Those are not times that anyone should wish to go back to. Nevermind that no one brings that up when the abuser is male. Somehow, perceptions of women offenders differ, despite the danger they present being every bit as real. She has gone through counseling, but it's clear that she still has no understanding that what she did was wrong. In fact, she's still trying to convince people that what she did was based in love, rather than being based in a power differential that allowed her to mold a male as she wanted. This last bit is supposition, I know, but, having worked with abused children and adolescents for many years, it's a fair guess.

[LeighAnn]

109. Gotta wonder how mankind survived as a species

for all those thousands (millions?) of years, what with there not being any counseling and all.

[HuckleB]

134. Do you have a point?

[kskiska]

2. When they get married

that'll be the beginning of the end of the love story. Illicit love is fun, but when they have to get down to the nitty-gritty of supporting those two kids it'll be a different story. Who will hire them?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. Mary Kay is the daughter of a Congressman.... who is her father?

does anyone know i believe he is from washington state ;shrug:

[demgrrrll]

9. John Schmitz who was described as being too right wing for John

Birch. I just read about him, he was a right wing nut to the extreme. He died in 2000.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. thanks for the reply...i just read about the wingnut &GOP "family values"

:puke:

[leftist.]

77. That's too bad ...

It's too bad that he didn't make it into today's climate of "the worse the crime, the better the right-wing host" thinking where there most certainly would have been a talk radio gig waiting for him. He could have filled the slot between Mark Furman's show and G. Gordon Liddy's show.

Now that I think about it, I bet Clear Channel higher-ups cry themselves to sleep every night because Mussolini didn't make it out of that Esso gas station. He'd have made a *great* host!

bah!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. found this........more" GOP family values" Letourneau's GOP father

Everything comes around again, not for everyone,
perhaps, but for most, and sometimes in curious
ways. So it may seem to John Schmitz, father of Mary Letourneau,
former United States congressman from Orange County, California,
and a gentleman of such extreme right-wing views that they led to
his expulsion from the national council of the John Birch
Society. It was Schmitz, always ready with a quip, who made headlines in 1972 when President Richard Nixon was forging ties with China. 'I
don't object to Nixon's going to China,' he declared. 'I just
object to his coming back.'


Schmitz was brash, unbounded, and unrepentant; a
brilliant zealot whose views were culled from a
particular reading of history and upheld without revision. He rose
easily in the surpassingly conservative clime that was Orange
County politics, because he was smarter and more conservative than
anyone else and was prepared to go to the mat for the truth,
as he perceived it. Though not classically good- looking, Schmitz
was an oddly arresting, charismatic figure, with his military
bearing, pencil mustache, dark, messianic eyes, and a vitality
that made him seem more alert and present than other people.


By the time of the Nixon quip, he was the
recipient of substantial conservative bounty: two Freedom
Foundation awards, the National Legislator's Award from the Sons of
the American Revolution, the Bulldog of the Year award from
National Associated Businessmen. But he had also made himself such an
irritant to more moderate Republicans that Nixon's chief
political operative, Murray Chotiner, often beseeched the party
chairman of Orange County: 'Can't you do anything about this guy?'

But no one could weaken Schmitz's hold on a large
following of Orange County Republicans-except, it
appears, Schmitz himself. After failing to be re-elected to
Congress in 1972, he returned to Santa Ana College, where he was a
popular teacher of philosophy and political science. Six years
later, he regained his onetime seat in the state senate. A church
going Catholic with an apparently devoted wife and seven
children, he was pegged as a family-values man, known for his consistency.
But his allies were stunned to discover that he had been having a
nine-year affair with a former student, with whom he fathered two
out-of-wedlock children. When news of this alternative domestic
arrangement surfaced, during yet another campaign-this time for the U.S. Senate---John Schmitz's unstoppable career was obliterated.


That was in 1982, the year Mary turned 20.
Thirteen years later, Schmitz was diagnosed with terminal
cancer

[TahitiNut]

13. Wow! That sure makes sense. I'm betting Mary Kay was sexually ..

... abused as a child, too. This smells like generational child abuse of a very perverted kind.

[LynneSin]

49. Interesting story

We sit here and blame Mary for all of this mess, but I'm guessing she's been royally messed up with a father like that!

[HuckleB]

52. Yes, that's very likely.

But she's still responsible for her actions. She worked to put herself in a position of authority and power over children, and she abused that authority something terrible. The sins of the father may be many, and their effects longstanding, but they don't wash away the sins of the daughter.

[Piperay]

116. Also I believe that when this other

family came to light it was determined that those children had been abused. I don't know if they ever knew for sure whether the children had been abused by Schmitz or his girlfriend.

[Scairp]

12. No

Her family was from California, I think. Don't hold me to that. I used to have a link to the website someone runs in support of her, but I cannot find it now. He died while she was in prison and they wouldn't let her go to the funeral. He was also, it was revealed, a serial philanderer. I think it ruined his career.

I also would like to add my two cents to this topic. While I certainly do not condone what she did, I don't think it's the same circumstance as a grown man and a young girl. It is widely believed that Mary Kay is bipolar and had not gotten treated for it, at least before she went to prison. Also, there was another case, a male teacher and his female student in the same area around the same time. He spent a little or maybe no time in jail, and when the girl turned 18, she went to court and had the no contact order lifted, whereupon they promptly flew to Vegas and got married. I think the time she did was completely out of proportion to the crime, and that she was singled out to be made an example of.

[maxsolomon]

14. the kids complicate the matter beyond simple rape

i have to think mary kay would do a fine job of raising her 2 kids.

no one ever contended she was a bad mom. just a cheneying nutcase, and her pop is one good reason why.

better at least than vili & his mom who blew $200k from the school district on parties & trips.

[HuckleB]

15. Thanks for scaring the crap out of me.

Yeah, I can see what a great mother she will be. At the age of 12, her kids will be fair game for any adult sex offender who can convince the kid that it's "true love."

As for you comment about the kid and his mother, let's remember that the money blown is actually evidence that this kid came from a mucked up home, making him an easy victim. Either that, or this is further evidence that this whole affair screwed him up but good. Well, it's probably a bit of both, but nonetheless, you cannot ignore the damage done to this kid by Mary Kay. I can't imagine putting any children in her custody, though I suspect they're not in the greatest of hands now.

[maxsolomon]

25. i'm not ignoring the damage done to vili

& your statement that "At the age of 12, her kids will be fair game for any adult sex offender who can convince the kid that it's "true love." defies logic. isn't any therefore child 'fair game'? are you saying mary kay would introduce her kids to the sex offenders she's made friends with in prison or something?

why WOULD'NT she be a good mom, other than the non-reason you gave?

vili's mom, who is raising the kids, is one of 5 baby mommies his father impregnated for a grand total of 18 children. they had 200k & blew it. we agree, that's mucked up. vili is mucked up & not mature enough to raise kids alone.

give mary kay a chance for redemption - isn't that what you're supposed to get after paying your debt to society?

[HuckleB]

26. What?

Mary Kay is still trying to defend having sex with a 12-year-old as the result of true love. Guess what? Sex offenders know how to find easy prey, and they are very, very good at convincing children of things. How is she going to defend her stance regarding Vili, if her kid says that he or she is "in love" with a 35-year-old, so it's OK if they have sex? She can't keep up the facade in such a case. So what will she do?

Thus, this isn't a non-reason. She still doesn't understand that what she did was wrong. That's a very strong indictment against her ability to be a good mother, to determine boundaries with her children and who she allows to be around her children.

The funny thing about this case, is that it shows the limits of our criminal justice system. She has supposedly paid her debt, yet she shows no remorse for what she did, and she has clearly learned no lesson from the matter. Thus, she is clearly not rehabilitated in any form.

And thanks for continuing to show us all just how vulnerable Vili was living ina a completely unsupported family life, which shows just how much of a "typical" sex offender Mary Kay actually is. She found a "weak link," and she exposed it for her own power and pleasure.

[maxsolomon]

33. was rehabilitation a requirement for her release?

i don't think we get much of that in our penal system. its about punishment. and she's been punished to the satisfaction of the court.

You ask "How is she going to defend her stance regarding Vili, if her kid says that he or she is "in love" with a 35-year-old, so it's OK if they have sex? She can't keep up the facade in such a case. So what will she do?"

I don't know. Do you know what will happen? 'What ifs' are pointless. Maybe she'll 'be a hypocrite' & say its not acceptable.

Why don't we just put her on McNeil island & toss out the key, like we do with the rest of the sex offenders we hold there illegally?

[HuckleB]

37. In other words, you haven't really thought this through.

Your line about "what ifs" is merely an excuse for the reality that she does not understand that what she did was wrong, that she has not learned anything from therapy and education, that she clearly cannot set boundaries for herself, so she certainly isn't going to be able to set them for her children.

Thanks for admitting that all we get is punishment out the system, thus allowing people to have "served their time" and go right back out and affect the people they've hurt all over again, one way or another.

And thanks for the hyperbole about throwing away the key. What's the point of that? Just to show your frustration?

[maxsolomon]

58. i haven't thought about it as much as you have

obviously. methinks you work in the abuse sector.

we agree on most of this - i think she's still wack, and given her father's insanity, will likely remain so, but since punishment is the point of prison, the state can't mandate that she become sane.

vili is going to sue for contact. he's an idiot from an absurdly broken home & an abuse victim, but that's what he's going to do. he is an adult now, so he gets to choose. she's going to get to raise those kids. not because i think she should, but because that's what he wants in his abuse victim's mind.

i just think your 'what if' is absurd - she's not going to turn her kids over to her pedophile buddies when they 'come of age'.

and the 'throw away the key' is because mcneil island's sex offender facility, where washington state involuntarily & illegally commits its rapists after their release, constitutes a violation of its residents' rights - their sentences are served yet they are still held. yet you don't seem to think she belongs there. is she not predator enough?

[HuckleB]

61. Again...

she's an unreformed pedophile. Why do you think she would protect her own kids, if she thinks it's ok? That makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a what if, it's reality.

I don't know anything about McNeil Island, so I won't comment on that. If people are truly held there illegally, then I would obviously find that abhorrent. On the other hand, knowing her behavior after her first release, I wonder if she won't do something to "justify" the authorities sending her there. I certainly wouldn't be shocked.

[Unperson 309]

53. Why Wouldn't She Be A good Mom? well....

what about the three (or four?) children she had with her *husband* at the time she took up with Vili?!

That's right, and IIRC, she had *just* HAD one of them! She had a babe-in-arms when she started with Vili! She's not being much of a mother to *them*.

What's to stop her from "falling in love" woth yet someone ELSE after she and Vili settle down in wedded bliss?


Now, I'm pretty much as liberal as they come, but folks, when ya HAVE KIDS, ya gotta TAKE CARE OF 'EM!

You do NOT start a family, then flit off and start another one! Sheesh!

That's what pisses me OFF with the whole "Baby daddy" thing! Men cat around knocking up woman after woman... women cat around, having six kids, each by different fathers...

*sigh* IIRC*, however, MKLt's hubby divorced her and remarried, so the kids will have a reasonably stable home.

A cow-orker of the Missus has three children by three different guys! When the missus (fairly conservative when it comes to children) asked her "Have you considered marrying any of them?" got this answer: "No, I don't want to deal with commitments!"

/me rips hair out by the roots and chews concrete!

Doesn't want to deal with *commitments*?!!??

Arrrggghhh!

309

[salin]

100. I dunno - perhaps that she already had a number of children

prior to this episode is a clue? That blowing up her family in this way and her kids' lives wasn't a big deal, might be a clue?

[SeattleDem]

48. a good mother? wonder if her other kids would agree

gee, I don't know how good a mother she can be. She left a husband and 4 kids to have an affair with a barely pubescent student.

She violated terms of parole and extended her prison stay by becoming pregnant by the boy a second time - a woman who was a good mother might have made other choices so that she wouldn't be incarcerated and would thus be available to her other kids.

Her husband has taken the kids to Alaska for a new life. Is she a good mother to them? Does she plan to move there to be near them?

sorry, she is no role model for motherhood in my book. Abandoning 4 kids is not a virtue.

[LisaM]

16. I think she committed a crime and messed up a lot of lives

on the other hand, I don't think people would by physically afraid to have her live in their neighborhoods, so I think there is a difference between a female and a male sex offender.

[HuckleB]

19. Yeah, perception.

That's the difference. The danger, however, is the same.

[rocktivity]

17. Vili Fualaau is street legal now

if he picks up with her now, she's his problem.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Carni]

95. I TOTALLY agree

She's nuts... but he's 21 and IMO no court should have jurisdiction over the guy unless he requests a restraining order against her.

[progressivebydesign]

18. I live a mile from the prison...

.. there were SO many news helicopters around all day yesterday, flying over the house. It shocks me how much publicity this case continues to generate. T.V. trucks at her new home? Why? She paid her debt, leave her alone. Doesn't the media have more important things to concentrate on? Oh wait.. I forgot.. she's pretty, white, and it involved sex. Never mind.

[RobinA]

93. It's Not Often

these days that a real live witch gets out of prison, it's bound to bring out the media. Probably brought the copters in case she flew off on her broomstick.

[K8-EEE]

22. Her Parents Were Scandalous GOP Hypocrites!!

here in So. CA. Her dad was a congressman and I can't remember maybe a Senator as well. Big time Orange County conservative assholes.

Her mom was on this show called "Free For All" which was one of the first political debate shows I watched as a kid. She was the shrill holier than thou, regressive GOP harpee kind of like that Blanquita what's-her-name on Faux now.

Her big thing was campaigning against the EPA, like the EPA was gonna kill all the family values etc. Nuts.

So OK, she used to go off on tangents about how immoral all us liberals were, until their own family had a particularly nasty sex scandal, then she quit that show and kind of disappeared.

Low and behold her hub had a whole secret family, that he didn't support, the rat, and his infant son ended up in protected custody because a Dr. claimed the baby somehow got a near-fatal infection from somebody tying a hair in a square knot around the baby's penis!

The stressed out single mom ended up dying young and the kid & his older sib were taken in by psychic Jean Dixon, who was a friend of the family.

Seriously! You can't even make up this shit. Oh those wacky conservative family values!

[Paschall]

107. ERA

Equal Rights Amendment. ("Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.")

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

The EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency.

[K8-EEE]

111. Oops, Yeah, Sorry For The Typo Although --

they probably had problems with the EPA too come to think of it!

[HuckleB]

23. "The Other Side of Darkness" (on female sex abusers)

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/112002/darkness.html

"Cases like these attract media and public attention because they surface so infrequently and therefore seem so unusual. Dr. Craig Allen, who in 1991 published the results of a major study comparing men and women who sexually abuse children, noted that since the 1980s, media coverage exploded about male but not female child molesters. Similarly, there hasn't been the same public outcry against females who have sexually abused children.

Downplaying the problem of female sex offenders infuriates Dr. Dale Bespalec, chief psychologist and sex offender specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. "The number of cases reaching the courts, and subsequently corrections, is rising," says Bespalec, even though male victims underreport sexual abuse compared to females. He estimates that currently there are about 20,000 female sex offenders in the United States. In Wisconsin, 130 women have served time for sex offenses since the 1980s. That compares to about 5,000 men now in state prisons for sex offenses. Nationally, females commit 1 in 50 sexual assaults, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Before shrugging off the problem as insignificant, Bespalec asks the public to consider the number of childhood victims of female abusers in the United States - 3.1 million, as calculated by Allen in his study. The average age of female abusers is 30. Clinical psychologist Jacqui Saradjian, author of the 1996 book Women Who Sexually Abuse Children, reports that statistics from multiple studies indicate that at least "one in every 100 girls and one in every hundred boys suffers serious sexual assault by an older female in childhood."

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/112002/darkness.html

----------

Albeit, a strange case to center such a story around, but... thought I'd share.

[playahata1]

30. LOTS of double standards when it comes to child sexual abuse.

It all depends on gender.

[HuckleB]

24. "Abuse by Women Raises Its Own Set of Problems"

http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/14women.h18

[phrenzy]

28. Can We...

Can we at least calm down and cut the crap. Let's talk reality. Not soap boxing.

The reality is that there is a HUGE difference between an experience that was NON-CONSENSUAL and one that was FORCED or COERCED in a direct way. Not saying it is RIGHT - I'm saying that to call it RAPE is a stretch, IMO.

Bottom line - If a 12 year old boy had a hard-on for his female teacher and he willingly had sex with her - that is NOT the same thing as a 12 year old girl getting pinned down and violated by a male. Period.

My first sexual experience was when I was 15 and the female was 25. Should I go hunt her down and send her to jail? The memory is a fond one to me and it was NOT a negative thing whatsoever. But, you people would have me believe she RAPED me? give me a fucking break.

I've had girlfriends that were 10 years younger than I am (I'm 32)- does that make me a pedophile?

I'm sorry to get blunt - but you can't force a boy to penetrate a woman. He has to do it willingly. It is possible he was coerced but it is NOT the same as a man FORCING his way into an unwilling girl.

[HuckleB]

32. Cut the crap, indeed.

How often do you think sexual abuse is about pinning anyone down? Physical force is usually not needed, because offenders are very good at convincing or threatening kids into doing things.

Do you know anything about development? Have you ever worked with children who were abused sexually?

Anyway, thanks for the double standards, but no thanks. Please inform yourself on this issue before offering anymore knee-jerk cliches.

:eyes:

[phrenzy]

38. Right..

Are you claiming all child abuse is 'the same' - Is it ALL about coersion? Like I said, was *I* coerced into having sex w/ a 25 year old woman when I was 15?

Don't act like it is all black and white. Yes, a child can be coerced into having sex with an adult by many means other than force. The threat of trouble, bad grades, etc. But it's NOT all the same. If there is no coercion and it is purely consensual your argument becomes one of whether or not the 'victim' is capable of consent.

It's possible to be a *very* mature 12 or a *very* young 12 both psychologically and physically. I remember in school some kids my age seemed like full grown adults while others the same age seemed like young kids.

The simple fact is - many males here remember being 12 and FANTASIZING about having sex with an older woman. I highly doubt many school girls fantasize about being lured into sex by a creepy authority figure.

[HuckleB]

41. How about responding to my post, rather than making stuff up.

I have no idea about your history, and I won't go there, since it won't serve any purpose and doesn't add to the discussion. However, your opinion that it's possible to be a "very mature" 12 and be able to give consent shows how little you understand about development as well as about how sex abusers work themselves into the minds of children. Further, your last line shows the double standard I spoke regarding female offenders of for all the world to see.

Like I said, maybe you should do some reading on this matter, first. Or better yet, volunteer to do some work with kids who've been offended. Get to know their histories. Get to know what the real world is all about.

That would be a great start.

[phrenzy]

60. please

Yes. EXACTLY! You have no idea about my history - and you have no idea about this woman and BOYS history! SO STFU. Not all 'abuse' is the same. I don't argue with the fact that it was 'wrong' but painting this with the same broad brush as 'child rape' is just wrong.

How in the hell do you know if this kid feels 'violated' ? How do you know if he isn't quite happy about it? Who are you to judge how he SHOULD feel about it.

Once again, even though you didn't want to "go there" - by your definition the first girl I had sex with was a 'child molester' - I hope you'll understand if I don't see it that way.

And yes there IS a difference between rape and consensual (though misguided) sex. And yes - there are unique differences in each case including the gender of the parties involved.

[HuckleB]

63. Thanks for showing your stripes.

I don't know if your history is true, or if you're just using it to push a point that you've come to without studying the issues -- or what. So it's really not valid here at all. That's why I didn't want to address it, even though it's the crux of your rants here. You've got nothing to back it up to make me believe it is a true story -- and I'm less likely to believe it since your posts are so angry and outrageous -- so you'll have to live with your history alone, regardless of what it really is or isn't. Plus, your posts show no indication of actual knowledge of what constitutes abuse, or how abusers work, or the effects of abuse.

The history of this case is quite public, quite well known, and the bottom line is she groomed this kid, and then she raped him. That's not just the law, that's knowing sex offenders, their behavior and excuses, and watching her follow the routine to the T. While no case is ever cut and dry, this one is quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about abuse, who has worked with families facing abuse from all angles, etc... You can pretend to live in a world where 34-year-olds having sex with 12-year-olds isn't rape -- not to mention living in your double standards, as noted above -- but I won't close my eyes to reality.

[phrenzy]

78. Nice one

Just plug your ears and claim you don't believe me. Talk about showing your stripes.

[phrenzy]

79. My Story

edit

[HuckleB]

81. Nice one, indeed.

You and I both know that the technique you are attempting to use is abused ad nauseum on the Net. Further, you have offered nothing more than your supposed story to back up anything that you've said here, while choosing to ignore a great deal of information presented to you.

In the end, you story doesn't mean jack in regard to this discussion. But you want to simply plug your ears to all that shows this reality. Don't you?

:eyes:

[RobinA]

94. You Are Very Right

but it's a black and white world these days and people don't like to hear you espouse shades of gray, especially on this emotional subject.

[HuckleB]

99. He's not espousing shades of gray.

He's offering a full-blown excuse for her behavior.

That's a big difference. And, when one actually notes the content of his posts as a whole, one sees that he's the one offering black and white nonsense by comparison to those of us who actually work with kids and families damaged by sex abuse and know the grays all too well.

[0007]

34. You are absolutely right, too many judgmental freaks on this

thread wanting blood.

[shrike]

42. A 12-year-old child is too young to consent to sex

It has nothing to do with being a judgemental freak. It's against the law.

[sendero]

57. I would jhave....

... a completely different opinion about this case if the kid were 16, even though in the eyes of the law it would make no difference.

As it is, 12 is just absurdly young, and very few boys of 12 are ready for a real sexual relationship, regardless of their "fantasies".

[The Stranger]

70. HuckleB seems to have eviscerated this argument several times now.

It doesn't matter how people perceive a male victim as differently from a female victim. Notwithstanding the fact that the psychological damage may be as bad to the male as to the female, as sex involves psychological development and intimcacy (despite the defended male's bravado contending otherwise), the law must treat the two victimes the same. Despite people's perception (or some poster's perception of that perception), the application of the law must be the same for both genders, here and elsewhere. End of story.

[Ediacara]

31. UPDATE: Letourneau freed from prison; **Fualaau moves for contact**

At the Seattle P-I's story.

[maxsolomon]

35. HuckleB you are right about this:

the kid is mucked up from this.

my thought is he wants those kids off his hands. i would too if i was 21.

[HuckleB]

39. I suspect he does, too.

Though, with such a bizarre story, and all the media attention, and everything that has kept this case at the center of his life for the past eight or nine years, I can understand where he may be confused, and may want to see about having a relationship with her. I can't see how anyone could develop typically with all that going on around him, and those are some very important developmental years.

Anyway, uh, sorry, if I got a bit turse in our above conversation.

Salud.

[progressivebydesign]

40. He still loves her...

.. according to the articles I've read recently. The story is familiar to me, because I live in Gig Harbor. We get a lot more info here.. The truth is, the guy still loves her, he's 21 now, and they have kids together. She's been the best mother possible to the children. He is trying to vacate the order that keeps them apart. Could it just simply be that two people, whose ages were so wrong, happened to be drawn together. I agree, a 12 year old boy (or was he 13) doesn't have the best judgement.. but everyone matures at a different age. Laws are laws, and what she did was wrong in the eyes of the law. But.. when it's all said and done, they still seem to have some sort of bond. I think the court should allow her to see him.. it's not like he's a child anymore, and it's not like he's asking for protection... far from it.

[AlFrankenFan]

36. I had a teacher named Letourneau

When I was in 4th grade in Oceanside, CA. An eerie coincidence.

[Tight_rope]

43. Anyone who gets sexual pleasure from a minor is "SICK"!..........n/t

[Unperson 309]

54. Then there's a BUNCH of sick folks walking the streets!

From what I've read and heard from sex workers who deal in fantasies, a good 50 to 70% of adult men fantasize about young girls. I mean *YOUNG* girls! The average of girls they fantasize about is 12 years old!

Now, to me, a 12 year old (of either sex!) is the LEAST "sexy" creature on Earth! but the bottom line with sexual fantasies seems to confirm the idea that they are liking them younger and younger.

I have several friends who do sex work and the youngest I've heard of guys fantasizing about is two years of age! Do the guys actually DO what they're thinking about and whacking off to? Who knows? Let's just say that if I had kids *today*, ANY age, there would be NO "overnights" ANYWHERE! I just don't *trust* people much anymore when it comes to underaged stuff! Yuck!

To quote Cecil adams "There are a whole lot of bent arrows walking around out there!"

309

[HuckleB]

55. Umm. Interesting statistics.

But most men don't go to sex workers, and even fewer go to sex workers specializing in fantasies, so let's not get carried away and say that 50-70 percent of men fantasize about pre-adolescent and adolescent girls, unless you've got a professional study to back it up.

[Uzybone]

87. amongst the most ridiculous posts Ive ever seen

n/t

[HuckleB]

44. "Both old enough to know better (now)"

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/9203678.htm?1c

"SHE'S BACK. She's looking for love. And, this time around, there's nothing we can - or should - do if the kid she sexually molested wants to accommodate her.

Sick as it seems, that's the hard truth about the twisted relationship between former elementary-school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau and her one-time student, Vili Fualaau.

Because once you turn 21 in this country, the law says you're free to make as big a mess of your life as you want. It's what makes America great.

So I grimly support Fualaau's right to destroy his future, even if it makes me feel sadder than hell to see him do it."

[HuckleB]

45. Study -- Children face sex risk at US schools

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1263844,00.html

"Research claiming that one in 10 American children has been sexually exploited at school - and that almost half the abusers are women - has shocked parents as one of the nation's most notorious pupil abusers is about to be released from prison.

More than 4.5 million school-age children have been subjected to some form of sexual behaviour from teachers or other adults meant to be looking after them, said the first official research commissioned by the US government's education department."

[HuckleB]

46. Teacher and student, parent and child -- research on female sex offenders

Teacher and student, parent and child

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031125/News/111250017

"In the past 25 years, primarily due to victim's rights advocacy groups, we have come to know more about the male predator who victimizes underage females. Society is now well aware of this phenomenon.

The Nevada Appeal in its Oct. 21 article, pointed out that males also offend against underage males.

While it is important to establish this profile, there is more to the story. Society knows little, and probably wants to know less, about the female sex offender. It is easier for most to direct anger at men who offend. We don't know what to do with the notion that women offend, beyond writing it off as aberrant behavior or a rarity, thereby dismissing any further thought or examination of the topic.

Guy Rocha and I were introduced by a mutual friend who knew of my doctoral research on female sex offenders and Guy's interest in this area of study. From Guy's adverse life experience and his interest in human behavior, paired with his independent study and writing on human behavior, there was recognition that we had common ground. We developed a mutual goal to inform society. Women do sexually offend, and in greater numbers than society recognizes."

[HuckleB]

47. More on Female SO's from Breaking The Silence:

http://www.breakingthesilence.com/female.html

Also, an interesting, informative site done by a sex abuse survivor:
http://www.kathleen-sullivan.com/

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

56. What she did isn't right, but I try to have compassion

because nothing is completely black and white. Apparently, this isn't as dark and evil as a grown man using a minor purely for sexual pleasure and exerting physical force to overpower them. However, just because they both felt love for each other doesn't make it right either. But I recall my own grandmother having married at 15 and starting a family at that age. She turned out allright. Twelve is probably way too young but I try to have some understanding for the feelings of the people involved. There's violent and abusive rape where no verbal consent is given at all, and then there are lesser shades of wrong such as statutory rape, where the law assumes that a minor is too young to offer true consent with understanding, if even the young boy had been the more sexually aggressive party. If Mary K. had been thirteen, there would have been no controversy, even though the identical sex acts had been committed.

[roguevalley]

59. I had to read this whole thread through before speaking, both as a

female and a teacher.

1. Nothing will ever make right the evil she did to that boy and those two babies she had with him. She manipulated that boy as evilly as any male pedophile ever did and two babies have to live with it in Washington and four up here in Alaska. She broke her family's trust, her student's trust, humanity's taboos. They are taboos for a reason and saying that what was possible ten thousand years ago, pre-teen kids having kids, is irrelevant now. We live now, not then.

2. She's a pedophile, a manipulating sexual predator. Period. Just because she wears a dress doesn't make her different. She is no more
different than the worst, ugliest, pot-bellied bastard pedophile walking around.

3. That boy had no consent. He was underaged. If he were a girl, would anyone call it 'love'? What if he was a girl with two babies that he popped himself? Love? Consent? Hell no. He was manipulated, twisted and used, just like all victims of predatory sex offenders are.

4. She has four kids up here in Anchorage who live with this every day. Now some believe she will be a good mother to her daughters by this kid?! She's a sex offending child-predators. It bothers me MOST that she will have contact with those kids. How is it that no one who is a man is allowed to be with kids, including their own, but she is? She's a pedophile.

5. I would think that anyone, including a few of the dips on Northwest Cable News (nwcn.com, a very good regional news channel) who think that she's 'in love' and they should 'be together' and they can 'make a family' should be FORCED to answer this question: if some forty something decided that YOUR pre-teen kid was a 'babe' and wanted to do them, would it be a crime or 'love'? I don't know how many dimwits there are out there that would hold to the line that ANY old dude that wanted their little child would constitute love but I doubt it would be very many.

I am livid with her. We get the other half of the story up here with the shaming and horror the first four of her kids have to live with. No one can cut her slack. She's a danger.

[phrenzy]

62. Calm Down - Simple Answer

Once again you are playing in to that 'black and white' bullshit.

Once again, I guess you would have my first girlfriend who was 25 when I was 15 thrown in jail? Nice one. Here's a tip - mind your fucking business!

Second - if *MY* pre-teen kid was a horny boy that felt what he believed to be love and then and a female teacher took advantage of that. I would look at the particulars of the situation and make my judgement accordingly. If it turns out my kid was as much an instigator it would mediate the situation. If it turn out she manipulated him at every turn, it would again be different. If it turns out they were just both dumb and misguided, she is still the guiltier party in the matter, but I would not want her strung up from a tree as you would.

Now, if my pre-teen kid was forcibly RAPED - again - RAPED - I would want the perpetrator dead. End of story.

How about that?

I'm sure it doesn't fit in to your black and white world of 'having sex with person under 18 = you are an evil monster"

[roguevalley]

64. BWAHAHA! First of all, a kid his age isn't even close to the lowest end

of the age of consent. Rape? By whose definition?

As to black and white, I taught for 27 years and no teacher has the right to do what she did to her students. Manipulation from a power position is evil. She had the power and used it against this boy's best interests. I taught sixth grade for years. I know what a kid this age is like.

Apparently the law means dick these days. No one has to stand for what they do. You don't change my mind one bit and calling me names is crap. She is what she is. She did what she did. Deal.

[shrike]

86. How about if your pre-teen was a girl?

Just curious.

[HuckleB]

65. Yeah, the press has been mindbogglingly out to lunch.

They refuse to educate themselves on issues in order to be able to report them with any basis in the real world at all.

Great post, by the way.

Salud!

:hi:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

66. It wasn't 10,000 years ago

You're right in that 12 years old is too young. But getting married at 14 or 15 was quite common just 100 years ago, not 10,000 years ago. "Too young" is not a clear black and white barrier that someone magically crosses over at exactly 18. I don't condone what Mary K did, but I can't accept that it was just as bad as a male physically and violently raping a female for pure sexual satisfaction and then casting her aside (or worse). I think the problem in America today is that we don't see shades of good and bad anymore. "In Texas, we don't do nuance" as Dubya puts it.

An example is Arkansas. I'm not sure this is still the current law but I just looked it up on the Internet and I assume it's still valid.

"...Rape - Section 5-14-103 (a) A person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person:

1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent because he is physically helpless; or
3. Who is less than fourteen (14) years of age. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subdivision that the actor was not more than two (2) years older than the victim; or
4. Not his spouse who is less than sixteen (16) years of age and who is incapable of consent because he is mentally defective or mentally incapacitated..."

In other words, it is rape if the victim is not mentally defective and less than 14 years old. The law also has a separate lesser charged offense of "sexual misconduct", carrying a smaller penalty for sexual activity with a minor between the ages of 14 and 16. This is the type of nuance I'm referring to. I believe the law in Canada has an age of consent of 14 years old as well.

I'm not saying what Mary K did was right. I DO think it should have been punished. I just don't see it as evil on the very same par and identical as a male violently forcing himself upon and using a minor for pure gratification. I think we need to see shades of wrongdoing in between. Again, if the girl had been 13 and not 34, there would have been absolutely no controversy, even for committing the very same acts and seducing the boy.

[HuckleB]

67. Will the double standard prevail, even today?

First of all, a 13-year-old girl doesn't have the power, the position of authority to groom and mold her victim from. That's why those two acts are looked upon so very differently. Second, most rapes of 12-year-old girls by 34-year-old men happen without physical force. They often happen under similar circumstances to this case, where the man has groomed the child into a belief the he cares for her so much that it's ok. And society looks upon those men with no question about the level of their guilt. So why should it look any different upon this woman?

P.S. -- The average age of marriage for western European men in 1900 was 28.5, and for women it was 25.63. I'm looking up other stats now.

OK. Here's some more:

"For women in 1786, the average age of marriage was 20.5 years. Between 1880 and 1889 the age went up to 21.6( Wells, 1985). In 1890, the average age of marriage for men was 26.1 and 22.0 for women (Schmidt, 1996). From 1920 to 1929 the median age for women went down to 20.8 years. In 1956 men and women were marrying at the all time low ages of 22.5 and 20.1 years (Darling, 1996). The age of marriage grew steadily since then. In the 1990's, the average for men is 26.7 and 24.5 for women (Schmidt, 1996).

From: http://www.theallengroup.com/members/Fr_novick.html

[roguevalley]

68. I agree. Teachers get it DRILLED into their heads their responsibility

to do right by kids. Sleeping with them isn't even in the ball park
for any reason. Kids get enough shit these days without some bimbo
doing this. She had her passport and was ready to run with him the second time they nailed her. She's a sicko and nothing about her is
different in my mind than anyone else. There IS a double standard here with boys and girls.

Someone said 'my horny kid'. I can't *agree* ever with underaged children. Boys are just 'horny', no harm. No foul? The way that people treat things like this, delineating between boys and girls is a crime. Its a damned crime, male or female. I was trained to protect children from exploitation. If this boy, having two daughters, at his age isn't exploitation, what is? He's going to be 37 years old when the oldest is 25. What the hell?!?

No wonder some boys grow up so messed up. I speak from teaching experience over decades. Either boys matter or they don't. I prefer to believe they do. Damnit.

[HuckleB]

72. Yes, I prefer to think so, too.

Cheers!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

69. 13 year old girls have enormous sexual power

in case you don't remember what Junior High was like. They can be very manipulative and conniving. I don't know what you mean by groom and mold. Sex is sex and that's what we are talking about. Both Mary K and the young boy wanted sex with each other. The young boy would have probably wanted sex from a 13 or 12 year old classmate if she'd seduced him too. From what I hear, Mary K still had his ring on her finger, and therefore it doesn't seem like she has "groomed the child into a belief that she cares for him so much that it is ok". Apparently, for her part at least, she genuinely loved him. Again, what she did wasn't right, but I have within me the capacity for some compassion, as I don't think we can automatically equate all rapes to the same evil act.

[HuckleB]

71. If you don't know what the term "grooming" means...

in the context of a discussion about sex abuse, I would definitely, highly, big time suggest that do some reading on sex abuse, sex abuse victims, and sex offenders.

Are kids in Junior High manipulative and cruel? Yup. Are they in a position of power? Nope. Do they understand the adult world and understand what's really going on in their world, in order to manipulate someone like an adult can? Nope. Further, you've got no idea what the boy wanted or didn't want. You do know from his history that he didn't come from the most stable home. In other words, he's the perfect victim for a sex offender, and sex offenders know this. They go after kids just like him, because they know they are vulnerable.

Further, what you're arguing has nothing to do with compassion. I can have compassion for her, while still understanding that she abused her power in one of the worst ways imaginable. And that she continues to do so today.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

73. Junior High School girls are MOST DEFINITELY in a position of power

when it comes to seduction and manipulation. If the boy had had sex with a 13 year old body or with a 34 year old body, he still would have had sex. I agree in that I think 12 is too young to have sex with anyone, whether in his age group or not. But there wouldn't have been any media coverage or uproar over a 12 year old boy having sex with a sexually sophisticated 13 year old girl (a few of which I recall from when I was 12 years old). I fail to see what your argument regarding Mary K knowing what goes on in adult world has to do with it. Of course she should have known better and of course she should have been punished. But I don't think she merits the same punishment as other possible types of rapes. Again, what they had is sex. What the boy could have had with a 13 year old girl who is promiscuous and sexually manipulative would have been sex. What the boy had with Mary K was sex. Maybe I don't know what the boy wanted but I assume you didn't either. I can only remember what I wanted when I was his age and that was a girl in order to have sex.

The fact that you cannot even admit to the possibility that there are shades of grey between violent, physical rape and any other situation involving a minor and an adult is something I cannot understand.

[HuckleB]

74. Wow!

You really don't get it, do you? And now you're even showing the old double-standard, by saying that a 13-year-old has power over boys because "they've got the sex to give." Umm. I'm sorry, but child peers do not have power over one another like teachers, priests, coaches, scoutmasters, etc... do over those children -- not even close. There is no justifiable comparison. You are merely trying to play "muddy-the-water-any-way-possible" games. Well, I've been around far too long to fall for that. You are trying to compare peer games with a person of authority, and it simply doesn't wash.

What's more, I suspect that you are oversimplifying the reality of who you were at that age. Memories are funny things, aren't they? Remember that. Boys and girls of that age can be manipulative, but even the manipulators are bloody insecure, and can be manipulated in return. Anyone who truly remembers those convoluted days, remembers that. They also remember that they can say "FU" to any peer, though most wouldn't dare do that to a teacher. Get my point yet?

And I have no idea what your last comment even means in relation to this discussion.

[shrike]

83. Hello?? LeTourneau was an adult, he was 12

It is against the law for adults to have sex with children. End of story.

[HuckleB]

85. Now, now. We'll have none of that.

We've got to pretend that everything is gray, you know, so we can have an out in case we become softball coaches or something.

;)

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

76. Trolling?

Or just stuck in eternal adolescence?

Whatevuh.

:eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

115. Let's Take Him Seriously for a Moment

When I was 12, I was in 7th grade. I had a really beautiful history teacher, she was probably late-20's. Practically every guy in school (and hell, maybe some of the girls) had a crush on her.

If she had come on to me, I would've been all over her. Would that have made her morally depraved and deserving of jail? Absolutely.

But I still would've loved every minute of it, and being the immature 12-year-old that I was, I probably would've bragged to the entire school about it. And while I can't predict with 100% accurately how else it would have affected me, I suspect I still would've turned out as a functional (and probably very productive) member of society.

DTH

[shrike]

122. Then if your daughter gets a crush on her history teacher and he

takes advantage of her, you'll have him prosecuted but won't worry about her -- she'll have loved every minute of it, right?

Again, it's the double standard that bugs me.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

124. Of Course There's a Double-Standard

Our society is patriarchal and hegemonic. Add to that the biological fact that women can get pregnant and men cannot, and you have a recipe where underage girls are legally protected from sex and its consequences much more so than boys. You have a recipe where girls are urged to abstain from sex as long as possible, while boys are urged to have sex as early as possible.

I have less problem with this particular double-standard for three reasons. First, the pregnancy issue (and distinction) is real and significant, especially in the case of young minors who may not know nearly as much about birth control as they should. Second, underage girls victimized in this fashion are generally more psychologically traumatized (which leads to potentially long-lasting effects later in life) than underage boys (although I acknowledge this may be a cause/effect issue relating to our patriarchal and hegemonic society). Third, because the simple and unfortunate reality is that our society is patriarchal and hegemonic at this time, the deck is currently stacked heavily in favor of males (particularly predatory, older males) with respect to interactions of this nature.

Accordingly, I think greater protection of underage girls (whether legally, or vis-a-vis increased societal condemnation and ostracization) is appropriate.

DTH

[shrike]

126. I take it that means you wouldn't be happy about the history teacher

Oh, by the way, were there not two children born of this "union." To a 12-year-old who is now an unemployed high school dropout and a female sex offender who also happens to be bipolar.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

128. Of Course I Wouldn't Be Happy

I would be outraged regardless of whether I had an underage son or daughter.

I'm not sure what else you're trying to get at, as your reply is very brief whereas I made an effort to post a substantive, thoughtful response. Feel free to expand, though.

DTH

[shrike]

129. Now you've answered My question

[DoveTurnedHawk]

131. Maybe So, But The Original Points I Raised in This Subthread Remain

Feel free to address them any time. I suspect I'll be waiting quite a long time, however.

DTH

[shrike]

132. My dear man, (and I do suspect you are a man), hegemony, patriarchy

and the like are fine for academic discussions. But as I have pointed out, repeatedly, the fact remains that a child cannot consent. A child cannot drive a car, sign a contract, or consent to sex. If an adult is charged with sexual contact with a minor the courts will sort it out without taking such issues into consideration.

As for whether or not the 15-year-old feels victimized, well, he feels what he feels. Maybe in legal terms it doesn't matter what an underage victim feels. There was a case in my area where an adult male (minister) ran off with a 15-year-old girl. They both stated they were in love and the girl begged for leniency for her lover. He was sent to prison.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

133. Again, No One Is Disputing the Legal Particulars of Consent

That is only the very tip of the iceberg, however. I'm sorry you're not interested in discussing this at anything but the most superficial level, because it's a fascinating issue, IMO.

As for this:

As for whether or not the 15-year-old feels victimized, well, he feels what he feels. Maybe in legal terms it doesn't matter what an underage victim feels.

I think how the underage victim feels matters very much to the underage victim, however!

There was a case in my area where an adult male (minister) ran off with a 15-year-old girl. They both stated they were in love and the girl begged for leniency for her lover. He was sent to prison.

No surprises there. To reiterate, however:

1) Do you see a distinction between a 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with a 25-year-old woman, compared to an older man raping (via violence, intimidation, coercion or manipulation) a young teen girl, or not?

DTH

PS: The fact that I'm a male is clearly displayed in my profile. Do you want to talk about the actual issues now, or would you like to continue down tangential paths like the "issue" of my gender?

[shrike]

135. All right

I think it's time to let this thread die, because there are more pressing matters to discuss at the moment and because you are obviously an intelligent person.

You and I are coming at this from seemingly irreconcilable directions. I want the law applied equally to both sexes, regardless of circumstance. You seem to feel that the "LeTourneau experience" may have a different impact on boys than girls, and that the shades of gray involved (not to mention America's sexual history -- boys do it, girls don't) make a black-and-white approach to the problem impossible. You also make a distinction between forcible rape and statutory rape, and here we can agree. I agree there is a big difference, and it has been my experience that these offenses are prosecuted much differently, as they should be. But I'm not particularly interested in the other shades of gray myself, especially when it involves minors and adults.

As for victim "impact" I feel it should only play a small part in the legal process because a child, particularly a pre-teen, is not old enough to decide what is best for him or her -- that's why he/she has adults in his/her life. I also feel that male AND female offenders should be prosecuted and processed according to the law. I guess having it otherwise would upset my sense of fairness.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

139. Ideally, Your Way Is Better

The notion of the law applying equally to both genders in cases like these is a fine one. I just happen to think that given the current (unenlightened) state of society, situations where women (and underage girls) are afforded greater protection -- in itself, a patriarchal view -- are less dire than more fundamental, structural problems.

I think that achieving gender equality in areas such as:

the boardrooms;
the legislative, executive and judicial houses of the country;
equal pay for equal work;
and portrayals within the sexist mass media

would all go a long way toward making quaint and antiquated the notion of things like "ladies' nights" (which recently got some press in New Jersey), lighter prison sentences for women and greater protection of underage girls (whether de facto or de jure).

I suppose it's a question of where you fight your battles, and whether you should wait to fight some battles until after certain other ones are resolved to your satisfaction.

Thanks for the conversation, it was interesting.

DTH

[shrike]

145. Can't disagree with those points

Been a pleasure speaking with you as well.

[HuckleB]

137. Thanks for the usual cliches.

I guess that those who don't spend time with kids of this age tend to forget what it was really like to be 12 years old.

Anyway, we've been down this road a few times already, but thanks for the repeated propaganda.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

140. Thanks for Your Continued Haughty Appeals to Nonexistent Authority

I remember very distinctly what it felt like to be 12. As for "propaganda," it's easy to dismiss and namecall. Try addressing the issues, instead.

DTH

[HuckleB]

148. Yeah, thanks for the propaganda and name calling.

That's all you've offered here. Sorry, but I don't think you remember jack about pre-adolescence, and I don't think you know anything about it now. You've made that clear in your posts.

"Nonexistent authority."

Hahahahahaha. Oh, you are a funny, non-serious guy.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

151. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I don't think you have any moral authority whatsoever to criticize anyone for propaganda or namecalling.

As for you telling me that I don't remember my own life when I was 12...well, a ridiculous and presumptuous attitude like that speaks for itself so eloquently that I don't really need to add anything else.

DTH

[HuckleB]

153. You're putting me in stitches here.

You offered up a ridiculous cliche version of a 12-year-old, so I called you on it. Whoops!? How dare I bring reality into the picture?

You don't have to think all you want. It's clear that you don't want to have to think. Nevermind that it's you who came here with some serious presumptions without having done a lick of reading on this issue, nevermind having no personal experience with it.

Anyway, take your pot and your kettle and do your homework. Then you can come back and learn what an honest conversation is really all about.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

154. You "Called" Me on It?

This has gone from ridiculous to surreal. How the hell would you know? Were you in my bedroom all those times I jacked off to Ms. K? Were you at our lunch tables every time me and my friends M, J and R talked about sleeping with her, and how great it would be?

Christ, and YOU talk about presumption? Take a look in the mirror.

DTH

[HuckleB]

155. Yes, I did.

And, from your reply, it's clear that you didn't even read my post, either that or you don't understand it, and, from reading this post, perhaps I can understand why. You've got some very select memories from your time as a 12-year-old. Yet, somehow you became a functioning adult, something that would have been very difficult for a 12-year-old who fits the cardboard cutout cliche you present of yourself at that age.

Talk is cheap, by the way. You never learned that? It's the quiet ones who actually had fun. Hey, we had to let you in on the secret sometime.

:evilgrin:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

159. I Was One of the Quiet Ones

Didn't seem to help me much through puberty and high school, though. ;-)

All I know is that if I'd actually slept with Ms. K, I'd have felt like the King of the World, and I probably would've been a hero -- no, a legend -- among my friends.

No doubt that would have some far-reaching psychological effects upon me. But I doubt they would have been anything nearly as traumatic or detrimental as what most underage girls who are manipulated into having sex with older men undergo.

Now if we'd had sex and Ms. K had gotten pregnant, yeah, that would've probably fucked me up pretty damn good. And unlike some, perhaps, I'm not condoning (and I have never condoned) what LeTourneau did, she's obviously messed-up and depraved.

By and large, however, I do not believe that underage boys are traumatized as much as underage girls by this sort of thing. It's still wrong, of course. I just don't think it's AS wrong.

Now, if you have any studies you'd like to point out to me that claim to the contrary, I'd be happy to read them.

DTH

[HuckleB]

162. There are a number of pieces on this board.

And, you can go to a Health Sciences University to read many more detailed studies on the matter. You can also see if your local library has the following books:

Female Sex Offenders by Julia Hislop:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930461003/qid=1091726946/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8632684-5695320?v=glance&s=books

Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children by Anna C. Salter:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465071724/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-8632684-5695320?v=glance&s=books

Abused Boys: The Neglected Victims of Sexual Abuse by Mic Hunter:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0449906299/qid=1091727291/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-8632684-5695320?v=glance&s=books

I work with boys and girls who've been sexually abused. There ain't a lick of difference in the level of trauma effects, regardless of gender, though those effects do differ with the individual, and they come out in many different ways (some of which typically differ by sex). Further, sometimes effects are noted right away, sometimes only years after the abuse, etc.... Anyway, the crime is the same. It's not like a car thief should get a different sentence because he steals a car from my neighbor who needs it to get to work, 40 miles away in Hood River, instead of from me, who virtually never uses his car, and could probably care less about the theft, as long as my insurance covers the payments. Further, predators often justify their actions to themselves and others by saying "it didn't harm him or her," so you'll excuse me if I find this whole notion that the crime is somehow different depending on the victim, by using a theory not based in study that effects are different depending on the gender of the victim, to be quite antiquated, scary misinformation.

One of the biggest things that boys struggle with is reporting, largely because of cultural nonsense about boys and girls. This often leads to years of behavior changes, where boys tune out of activities they once enjoyed, their grades go to crap, their development stagnates as their social life with peers deteriorates, and, often, they end up abusing drugs and alcohol, etc... before ever getting help, if they ever get help. So, again, I struggle to see why anyone would push myths ad nauseum when they haven't actually looked into the issue at hand.

Goodbye.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

166. Thank You!

Now really, was that so hard?

I will take a look.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

169. Out of Curiosity, What's Your Opinion of Jim Hopper?

If you're familiar with him, anyway.

DTH

[HuckleB]

170. A good, careful, considered researcher.

He probably could use a bit more time in clinic to round out his findings, but that's pretty much the way it is for all researchers.

[phrenzy]

80. My 'Abuse' Story...

When I was 15 I had a part time job, my manager was 25. We were great friends and shared the same twisted sense of humor and hung out a lot. If there was any 'grooming' it was ME was doing it to HER. Eventually we 'fooled around' and had sex (sort of - long story).

In any case, we didn't have sex until LONG after she was my manager (i.e. no 'position of power') - I still look back on my time with her fondly and don't feel taken advantage of in the LEAST. Quite the contrary, I was after her the whole time and felt like the king of the world when we finally did connect.

Then, my last girlfriend was 18 and I was 30? Was I a monster? Did I 'groom' her? What if she was 17? Would that suddenly have crossed a moral (nevermind legal) line?

Of course, I agree that you have to draw the line. And legally we should. But the courts should differentiate based on malicious intent. If the two people were just misguided and believed they were "in love" - I fail to see how that is the same thing as some pot-bellied pervert laying in wait in the woods to rape a 13 year old girl on her way from school. If you can't see that you must have a repuke black/white version of the world in which case the conversation can move no further.

Now, my point isn't to say that this particular case was A-OKAY. Indeed, I don't know the facts involved. I only know the facts involved in my case and you are telling me it is something to be ashamed of. I find that VERY offensive.

[HuckleB]

82. It seems like it's you who's telling himself he should feel ashamed.

Perhaps you're actually quite mixed about both of the encounters you described.

And why did you talk about a 22 yo girlfriend before, but only bring up the 18 yo now? Sorry, but something just doesn't add up about your posts.

Call me suspicious, as I know you will. But your adamancy, in the face of the evidence and information provided to you tends to lead folks down that road.

But I love a good fish fry, so...

[phrenzy]

88. Jeeze..

So, you won't address my point because you believe I'm lying? Wow. Nice debating technique.

The girl was 18 when I FIRST MET HER and 22 when we broke up so both were true. (it depends on what the meaning of.... well nevermind)

I am not at all conflicted about any of my experiences (with the older woman or younger girl). I simply get annoyed when do-gooders rush to judgment on issues that can be more complicated that just a simple 'crime'. As I said, I have no doubt that you would have called the cops on me and my 25 year old friend thinking that you were "saving" me or some such nonsense. That is lame.

Anyway, you can believe me or not. I don't know why you find it so hard to believe in fact the story is much more difficult to believe than I have led on but those details don't matter.

Anyway, my basic point: A person guilty of bad judgment is not necessarily a "sexual predator".

[HuckleB]

90. Do you have anything to actually add to this conversation?

Your defenses in this post are predictible, and in line with the constant changing of your stories, as well as your bizarre need to repeat them, twist them and add to them. But whatever. You don't understand what sex abuse is, what its effects are, who and what a predator is, etc... and you don't want to understand it, that much is clear. You want to define it away as bad judgment. Fine. I'd say you haven't looked into the matter enough, not in this case, nor in the case of sex abuse in general -- not by a longshot. But I'm sure I already pointed that out, as I offered you a taste of the reality of sex abuse.

[phrenzy]

102. I know...

I know what sex abuse *IS* - It would appear you do not know what it *ISN'T*.

[HuckleB]

105. So you claim, repeatedly.

Though your posts show a definitive lack of understanding of either. Heck, in truth, you've shown an inability to discuss this issue on even a remotely intellectual level. You've just ranted with emotion. Black and white emotion. What good does that serve?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

113. Christ, Cut the Armchair Psychologist Act Already

Take the guy at his word for a minute (IMO, he's been quite consistent this entire time), and try squarely addressing his questions. To summarize:

1) Do you see a distinction between a 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with a 25-year-old woman, compared to an older man raping (via violence, intimidation, coercion or manipulation) a young teen girl, or not?

2) Do you feel the 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with the 25-year-old woman has been victimized? Has he done anything to be ashamed of?

All you're doing is dodging, and making haughty appeals to -- a very unapparent -- authority.

DTH

[phrenzy]

117. Thank you.

Note the lack of response. Jaysus H Christ. Talk about talking in circles and dodging questions!

Oh well. The silence is the answer. Things are not so simple as good guys vs bad guys after all.

[shrike]

123. Look. When a child is too young to consent to sex, violence or the

lack of it is irrelevant. He, or she, CAN'T consent. It's the law.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

125. More (BLATANT) Dodging

Are you similarly incapabable of answering the two questions posed above? Give it a try. Here, I'll even make it easy for you, I'll repost those questions here:

1) Do you see a distinction between a 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with a 25-year-old woman, compared to an older man raping (via violence, intimidation, coercion or manipulation) a young teen girl, or not?

2) Do you feel the 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with the 25-year-old woman has been victimized? Has he done anything to be ashamed of?

(No one is disputing the legal particulars of consent.)

DTH

[shrike]

127. The law sees no distinction

It doesn't matter what I or you think.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

130. BZZT

First, the law does see a gender distinction in certain states. Second, and potentially even more importantly, there is also the reality of selective prosecution, and societal condemnation and ostracization, and psychological trauma and impact, which all carry consequences down the road.

So what you and I think, especially as it pertains to how our larger society thinks, matters very much.

It's quite clear you (and HuckleB) are simply unwilling to answer the basic questions posed above, however. Why that is, I'm not entirely sure. But just in case I'm wrong, here you go again:

1) Do you see a distinction between a 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with a 25-year-old woman, compared to an older man raping (via violence, intimidation, coercion or manipulation) a young teen girl, or not?

2) Do you feel the 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with the 25-year-old woman has been victimized? Has he done anything to be ashamed of?

DTH

[HuckleB]

142. It's clear that all you want to do is muddy the waters.

And then call it thinking in grays. Baloney. You've got to know all the angles before you can actually deal with the grays of those angles, and it's clear that you don't.

Obviously, there are differences between 12-year-olds with 34-year-old teachers and 15-year-olds with 25-year-olds. Yet, the reality is that the poster who brought all this up is using it to say that maybe the whole Mary Kay thing was A-OK, while treating other posters with his version of the adolescent rant repeatedly, and he's now 32 years old, but you think we should take him seriously. Excuse me for having my doubts.

I also find it interesting that you continue to compare forced rape with this purported 15-year-old/25-year-old tryst. Talk about a disingenuous comparison, and talk about a complete lack of understanding of predatory behavior.

In the end, it's clear that you're just playing games, changing the landscape as you go along, while ignoring the information about abusers and the effects of abuse as you do. Why you would do that, I don't know.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

143. More Vacant Appeals to Authority

You've got to know all the angles before you can actually deal with the grays of those angles, and it's clear that you don't.

:eyes:

I also find it interesting that you continue to compare forced rape with this purported 15-year-old/25-year-old tryst. Talk about a disingenuous comparison, and talk about a complete lack of understanding of predatory behavior.

It's called a step-by-step analysis, and agreeing upon a fundamental framework. If you accept that there's a difference between a 15YO boy pursuing and having sex with a 25YO woman, and a situation where an older man manipulates, coerces, intimidates or forces a young teen girl (which there obviously is, although I find it fascinating that you continued to dodge the question despite the obviousness of the answer...I suspect it's one of those odd debating tactics where you refuse to give any ground whatsoever, unwittingly at the expense of your credibility), then you have a common ground for discussion. Then you can move on and ask other questions, such as whether or not there's a distinction between a 15YO boy pursuing and having sex with a 25YO woman, and a 15YO girl pursuing and having sex with a 25YO man. Or whether there's an actual distinction between 12YO and 15YO, even though the law might not see one. Or any number of other questions.

In the end, it's clear that you're just playing games, changing the landscape as you go along, while ignoring the information about abusers and the effects of abuse as you do. Why you would do that, I don't know.

The only thing clear here is that you're not interested in an honest discussion, you're only interested in pushing your POV without any backup beyond empty appeals to authority.

DTH

[HuckleB]

147. You are talented with the swift propanda swipes.

Alas, you haven't been able to back them up with any substance. You can't do an analysis based on partial information. That's dangerous. You do understand that there is a reason behind the old saying about the dangers of knowing a little bit of the story, don't you? OK. Can we now get beyond your pretending to have done any analysis based on anything other than your imagination?

I am very interested in honest conversation. That's what I've been trying to have here. On the other hand, you and your pal, have done everything to ignore the whole picture while repeating the same mantra, and it's a mantra based on what? Some made up story that we're all supposed to spend hours contemplating, while you clearly have done no study, no work, and have no knowledge of the issue outside your imaginary analysis?

You want an honest conversation, then start having one. Don't point the finger at those of us who are actually trying to have a conversation here.

Sheesh.

:eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

149. "Made Up Story"

That absolutely proves you're not interested in an honest conversation. He tells you about a personal experience that is more than feasible (I personally know several others guys who have similar stories), and you dismiss it out-of-hand simply because it raises issues that you're not prepared to deal with, or which are inconvenient for your POV.

I had a great conversation with shrike on some pretty contentious issues, and at the end we were able to come to at least some semblance of common ground. It's just up the way a little bit, in case you want to read it and learn what an honest conversation's really about.

DTH

[HuckleB]

152. Wrong. It proves that I'm tired of the propaganda.

It proves that I've had enough of the nonsense, of obsessions with a so-called story, being used out of context, without any corresponding information, all the while you and your pal have chosen to absolutely ignore the information presented to you.

You are the ultimate fundamentalists. "Here's my story, and don't you dare try to present information to the contrary."

You don't know jack about honest conversation. You've done nothing but play games, so take your name calling and look in the mirror.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

161. Whatever

:eyes:

DTH

[HuckleB]

163. Wow!

The truth hurts sometimes, don't it?

[HuckleB]

136. Sorry, but he has not been consistent.

Nevermind that it's got nothing to do with this conversation, and he can't back up his claims of who knows what with any valid study, while showing a complete lack of understanding of the picture of abuse. In fact, he has merely ignored any information about the picture of abuse.

But, yeah, I should just sit idly by while folks rant away, spreading misinformation.

Sorry, I won't sit quietly by.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

141. Psst! He's Telling You About HIS OWN Personal Experience!

WTF does that have to do with your ridiculous efforts to get inside his head, or imply he somehow got his own personal experience wrong, or any "study" (which you yourself have not cited in any detail)?

:crazy:

And no one is asking you to sit quietly by, that's ridiculous. In fact, we're practically begging you to SPEAK, by answering two simple questions (which you CONTINUE to dodge):

1) Do you see a distinction between a 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with a 25-year-old woman, compared to an older man raping (via violence, intimidation, coercion or manipulation) a young teen girl, or not?

2) Do you feel the 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with the 25-year-old woman has been victimized? Has he done anything to be ashamed of?

DTH

[HuckleB]

144. Oh man, you crack me up.

You clearly haven't read the board, so therefore you can say I haven't provided any "studied" information. Now that's bloody hilarious.

As for your diversionary questions, I've already answered them. Too bad that you and your pal can't address anything that anybody else posts. What's with the narcissism, anyway?

I couldn't resist!

:)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

146. I'm Talking About This Subthread

I haven't read every single post in this thread, because it's very long. Feel free to point out anything you feel is relevant.

As for your diversionary questions, I've already answered them.

Not from where I'm sitting. All you've done is dodge and bluster. In case you've forgotten, those questions are:

1) Do you see a distinction between a 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with a 25-year-old woman, compared to an older man raping (via violence, intimidation, coercion or manipulation) a young teen girl, or not?

2) Do you feel the 15-year-old boy pursuing and having sex with the 25-year-old woman has been victimized? Has he done anything to be ashamed of?

And how about the entire rest of my post? Who are you to say his personal experience was wrong, or inaccurate? Who are you to psychoanalyze him? How do your "studies" apply to his personal experience?

DTH

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

156. Read the thread.

If you can't even do that, what business do you have calling me names? What business do you have saying that I haven't answered the questions, when I clearly have answered them? And what business have you making a claim that I haven't read your entire post, as you haven't read the thread, haven't answered my posts, but your own versions of them, etc... etc... etc...

I asked him to offer something more than so-called personal experience, which we all know is far too often abused on the Net in order to push some point of view or another. Yet, you seem to think that a personal story is all one needs to offer. Well, I've got tons of personal stories about 12-year-old boys, 15-year-old boys etc... who have been manipulated and abused sexually by women and men. So excuse me if I want to see something more to your so-called argument.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

157. Where Have I Called You a Name?

I'm not the one with deleted messages in this thread, after all!

This thread is now over 150 posts long. Maybe when I have more time, I'll read the whole thing from start to finish. Until then, if you're not interested in pointing out what you feel is relevant, then I guess we'll have to defer our little spat.

It's very easy and convenient to dismiss another's personal experience, however credible, as irrelevant or false, heaping scorn and condescension along the way. It's far more challenging to address it squarely.

DTH

[HuckleB]

158. Yeah, I called you a hypocrite, so the post got deleted.

In the meantime, your posts stand because you haven't called me something directly, though you and I both know that you've played the name calling game here virtually every time you've posted. Or are you actually not interested in an honest conversaion?

By the way, thanks for playing the propaganda game again, and painting my posts as something they clearly are not, all the while ignoring anything that I've had to say, because it's clearly inconvenient to the pushing of your propaganda.

You entered the fray, and then you chose to say things to me, about me, about my posts that are simply not true in the context of the thread as a whole. That's disingenuous at best. Now you want me to go back and repeat everything for you? You've had plenty of time to repeat your rants, your mantras, while ignoring the responses to them and responding to phantom posts over and over again. But you don't have time to actually educate yourself on the issues at hand? Very interesting.

Again, do your homework, and, again, that really should go well beyond reading this thread. You can't have an honest conversation when you don't really know the history of the matter at hand. I think you know that, though I doubt that you'll admit it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

160. Like You're Supposed To Be Some Kind of Innocent?

Every post of yours that I've read has dripped with condescension and haughtiness. News flash: people often tend to react negatively to those sorts of posts.

We will have to agree to disagree on what's true or not, and what's propaganda or not, because obviously we are coming from diametrically opposed viewpoints on that.

As for "homework," like I said, if you're not willing to point me to a specific, relevant article (which should take you all of two seconds, if you know the material as well as you purport to), then I'm afraid you're just going to have to wait.

DTH

[HuckleB]

164. Then you definitely haven't read much of this board.

Clearly you came here to play games, all the while claiming you wanted an honest conversation. Is there any difference between that and trolling?

As for your agree to disagree bit, whatever. You're arguing about something you don't know enough about to discuss. So your disagreement isn't worth much.

Further, why should I do your homework? You should've done that before you came to this board. And you should've read the board before you attacked me and others. Yet, you can't be bothered to even look at the material that's on this very board. You want me to repeat everything for you.

Like I said. You came here to play games. Sheesh.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

165. The Only One Playing Games Here Is You

But I'm through with this nonsense. You even felt the need to respond to a simple "whatever" above, so it seems clear that you desperately need to have the last word. So go ahead and take it.

I think it's quite clear to any neutral observer, however, which one of us truly interested in honest conversation. Again, feel free to take a look at the conversation between shrike and me for an educational (in terms of how two people with wildly differing views can have an interesting discussion and even reach some common ground by the end) exchange.

DTH

[HuckleB]

167. Believe what you want.

But I'd recommend a mirror for you about now. I can guarantee you that any neutral observer is going to note that you are arguing points that you don't have the information to argue. I know you won't admit that, but the truth remains.

Further, your conversation with shrike went off on tangents that have little to do with this issue. In other words, he let you off the hook. I haven't, and you haven't been able to deal with that constructively. You continue to spend your time posting the same old, uninformed posts, without taking the time to begin to educate yourself on sex offenders, sex abuse etc... What is wrong with this picture?

And you posted a "whatever" post. Why? Then you get mad when I respond to it?

That's hilarious.

[shrike]

84. What was the age of consent in your state at that time?

If it's 15, well then, okay. If it was not, well, you were not old enough to consent whether you knew it or not. Simple as that.

[phrenzy]

89. Yeah, it is that simple.

Age of consent is 18 where I am, so yes it was a "crime" in the eyes of the law.

Do you believe I would have been more damaged by seeing this woman that I cared for taken away to jail or to simply continuing our relationship? I'd like to know.

[RobinA]

96. Clearly...

<<sarcasm on>> you were the victim of a predator and she should be hunted down and jailed immediately for life. You should then be committed to an institution for as long as it takes for you to be reeducated that you have been irreparably harmed for life. Your fond memories must immediately be converted to the proper ones of sin and degradation. You must be wracked with guilt for even briefly considering that this experience was a good one. How DARE you flaunt society's teachings in this manner. You must never, NEVER again attempt to provoke the sacred sex cow. <<sarcasm off>>

Sheesh.

[HuckleB]

101. Yeah, who cares about kids who are abused by those in power.

I mean what's with all these people suing the Catholic Church, anyway?

Sheesh!

:eyes:

[phrenzy]

103. It's occured to me.

From your bizarre accusations of me 'lying about my story' or whatever to your total disregard for any argument that may portray your world in hues other than black and white. It is clear YOU are the one with the distorted view in this thread.

Talk about twisting words. Now you've compared *my* story to a pedophile priest. Nice one! Reductio Ad Absurdum anyone?

[HuckleB]

104. Can you read?

I guess not. Reading comprehension really would help you in discussion.

Sheesh.

By the way, it's interesting to note that you're the one who's offering nothing but black and white thinking here, though you continue to repeat the claim to the contrary, your posts speak otherwise.

[shrike]

119. Okay. So you weren't old enough to consent

As for "going after her," that's up to you. Obviously you won't, and that's your decision. But I have to wonder about a 25-year-old woman who'd sleep with a 15-year-old kid -- and that's all you were at that age, a kid.

[HuckleB]

138. And considering...

The adolescent tirades he's thrown on this board at age 32 -- telling me to STFU, among other things -- I'm quite doubtful that he was mature enough to give consent at 15 either.

[kestrel91316]

106. Letorneau

Bread and circuses, people............look over here at this harlot walking out of prison! Pay no attention to that man working to take away your rights!

[roguevalley]

108. after going to curves and working out my aggravation about her, I

came to two thoughts: the idea that this boy has had major, MAJOR choices in his life made for him by an idiotic criminal and the fact that there is a double standard here that no one has touched on yet.

First, this is what from 27 years of teaching I know about 6th graders, after teaching them for 14 years of the 27. They like:

dirt bikes and motorcycles
sipping booze once in a while when no one is looking
anime, action movies and guns that go BOOM!
food
snowboarding, skiing and other sports
pop warner football and getting on a team
softball, riding bikes and hockey
gameboys
each other's company
being taken seriously on important issues, which are usually limited to the above
girls as status symbols: "He's going with her." That usually means their parents dropped them off at the same place. That constitutes a date. Of course, I am sure there are others who like to fuck around but this usually constitutes a typical 6th grader's goings on.

What has this woman done that has taken choice from this boy:

whether to be a father: he is one, wanted or not. Forever.
sex: a choice to have it with someone his own age, someone who might just be like him, rather than a freaky 30 year old who is a criminal
privacy: that is gone forever.
being a grandparent: he will be one some day whether he wants it or not. Consider, if his oldest child has a baby when she's 18, he will be a grandpa at 30. Amazing, no?
being free of her: he never will be, even if he wants to. The kids, you see.
mental and emotional confusion and guilt: forever. she continues to manipulate him, she always will.

Consider the gist of some of the arguments here: a young guy is hot for teacher, a young kid is horny. Remember, this is a 12 year old, someone not old enough to drive, sign a contract, be out after a certain hour, vote, drink or smoke. Some don't see an issue here.

The issue is exploitation of a minor in violation of the law and of the ethics codes that govern professionals such as teachers. This child was used and abused by a calculating adult and some are not really bothered by it.

So ...

Consider the other persons in dresses that have violated minor children, who have manipulated them for sex and have self-justified with many of the same rationales above.

We call them priests.

What about it? If it is so DAMNED unholy for a priest, using his moral and ethical authority to have sex with underaged children, why is it no big deal for a teacher, using their moral and ethical authority to do the same thing? Could it be that she is a woman and the victim is a boy? Are boys so undervalued in our society that their well-being and right to be unmolested is a joke, or perhaps not considered an issue? Girl violations get blood boiling. Boys don't seem to. Could it be that women/girls are still somehow, somewhere deep inside considered property to be damaged and men/boys aren't?

If it is a crime when a man in a dress (priest) does it, its a crime when a woman in a dress (teacher, etc) does it. There can be no difference in the two situations. Both are adults exploiting children for sexual and emotional gratification.

I loathe this woman for what she did to this boy and his family. I loathe her for what she did to the profession. There's a woman in Florida who has done the same thing. Is it just another boy having a good time or is it a crime? It either is, for both teachers, women, priests, etc, or it isn't.

You can't call it both ways.

[DemBones DemBones]

110. Well, it's been more than 15 years since I taught 6th graders

but I imagine a few of them were sexually active and more of them wanted to be.

Kids in 2nd and 3rd grades are having sex and that's been going on for almost thirty years that I know of. Not all kids, but some kids.

12 year-olds are rarely as sexually innocent as they're being portrayed in this thread. They are part goofy kid and part horny adolescent, especially the boys.

I'm not saying teachers should have sex with students and I agree a 34 year-old should have no interest in a 12 year-old. But this one did and she's had two children by him, spent seven and a half years in prison, and now he's 21 and they still want to be together.

I think society has done all it can to punish and/or rehabilitate her and compensate him (He and his family blew through $200 K? Wow!) Now they have to live their own lives. Sure, keep an eye on her in case she does develop an interest in another young boy and don't let her work with kids. But either we start doling out a life sentence to every single person who has sex with a minor or we have to give paroled sex offenders a chance to start a new life and obey the laws. I know the statistics are bad but surely they're no worse for this woman than for any other paroled sex offender.

[shrike]

121. The 21-year-olds I know are not ready to be husbands and fathers

and none of them have even half the baggage this guy does.

And hasn't this woman been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a rather serious mental illness? Not to mention the fact that no school district will employ her?

I don't give real good odds on their "love" lasting.

[shrike]

120. I agree

[underseasurveyor]

112. Look phrenzy

People that prey on minors under the guise of "love" or "cares about" are predators plain and simple. They are predators that use seduction to get what they want. There is also a huge difference in the emotional and maturity level between a 12 year old and a 15 year old. We don't live in a society that grows up with 12 and 13 year olds being married off. In the cultures that still do, 12 and 13 year olds have grown up with this custom as a way of life. It's just a little bit different here in the US wouldn't you say?

I've heard people say that because a male gets an erection it can not be considered a rape. That's a bunch of hogwash. Predators use seduction to their advantage very well in a varity of ways.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp that different parts of our bodies are designed to respond to stimulus in specific ways according to function and purpose. And if sexual parts of the body are stimulated = seduced that part of the body IS eventually going to respond because it does feel good even if the experience is unwanted and uncomfortable. It is an unavoidable fact and predators know this and take advantage of it by using seduction against their prey.

Add to this the fear and guilt of the victim, in this non-violent seduction of a minor, because more likely than not it felt good to him dispite the probability of his unwillingness to be a willing participant in the beginning. It feels like your own body has betrayed you because you couldn't control it and you didn't want to do this in the first place. Did this young man eventually participate willingly later on? Seemingly he may have. But a 12 year old be it a boy or a girl is extremely easily manipulated. Especially after the deed and the damage have already been done.

Was this boy "raped?" IMHO Yes he was. She had the responsibility and the duty to act as the adult. She didn't. She is as sick a woman as any male rapist is.

[HuckleB]

168. Great post.

Thanks for putting it so clearly and succinctly.

Salud!

[underseasurveyor]

114. Does Mary Kay have a connection to the BFEE?

Be it ever so slight and through no fault of her own.....Imagine that, yep she does. Small world, ay.

Gotta love the Pigdog Journal :evilgrin:
http://www.pigdog.org/auto/Bush_Family_Hi_Jinx/link/1919.html


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/08/DD161373.DTL
"And in the six degrees of separation department, the New York Daily News reports that Mary Kay Letourneau's brother is married to the sister of Jeb Bush's wife. Letourneau is the schoolteacher who had two children with one of her students. ."

Poor woman I almost feel sorry for her. Almost. Between her repuke father and any connection with the BFEE via the choice of a spouse by her brother, no wonder she's all fucked up in the head.

[icymist]

118. (Related Story) Letourneau registers as sex offender

hursday, August 5, 2004

Letourneau registers as sex offender
Fualaau asks judge to lift no-contact order

By VANESSA HO AND SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

Scurrying past a throng of journalists camped out at the downtown courthouse, Mary K. Letourneau registered as a Level 2 sex offender with the King County Sheriff's Office yesterday, hours after her child-rape victim, Vili Fualaau, petitioned a judge to let the pair reunite.

Through his attorney, Fualaau filed a motion to lift a no-contact order that bars Letourneau -- his former elementary school teacher and mother of his two daughters -- from seeing him.

In the motion, which he filed soon after Letourneau finished a 7 1/2-year prison sentence early yesterday morning, Fualaau said he isn't scared of her and is now a 21-year-old adult who wants to choose whom he sees.

"The order was entered for his protection at a time when he was a juvenile," says the motion now pending before King County Superior Court Judge Linda Lau.

More at this

[HuckleB]

171. CASE STUDIES OF FEMALE SEX OFFENDERS IN THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/sexoffender/female/toc_e.shtml

[Moderator]

172. Locking

This thread is no long serving the purpose of discussing Letourneau.
If posters wish to continue talking about sex abuse, perhaps a post in the Social Policy would be a good idea.

Additionally, if the personal attacks were deleted in this thread, there would not be much left. A cooling off period is in order.