Dirty old men vs dirty old woman..?

I wonder if there is some kind of testosterone related thing that happens to some men to make them become paedophiles and run off with kids..?   These stories are almost always about men..  and only rarely about women.

With this recent story of the maths teacher and the 15 yr old girl...  would our view have been different if it had been a female maths teacher and a 15 yr old boy..?

I wonder if sexual abuse by female doctors towards male patients simply doesn't get reported as much...   if it were to happen, maybe the man might just laugh about it or think he's had a lucky day!

Its certainly true that we hear far less about women involved in these things than men...  so, is that because of selective reporting by the media or that it just doesn't happen...   or, that men/boys, simply don't report it...?

At a fundmental level, are men and women different on this aspect..?

 

 

«1

Comments

  • nowadays i think the teacher situation is viewed the same............by me at least..........

    there was a big nedia coverage of the female teacher a couple of years ago.......

    I really do think that it is much more a male thing than a female thing.......but like all things this can make it even harder for any boys that have been attacked by women to be able to come out and report it

  • I think men and women are more equal than we'd like to admit so of course there are as many predatory women around. Go to most town centres on a friday/saturday night to see that. The difference is a young lad being seduced by an older woman would possibly be seen by the lad as an adventure. I think possible reasons may be that males are physically stronger so there is not always the reason to feel coerced into anything, as it would always be possible to resist. also I don't think you generalise about men becoming Paedophiles and running off with kids. This happens very rarely and I dare say men do not become paedophiles as I'm sure we've all heard the phrase you can't change me, I was born this way.

  • Certainly there are more males are reported and convicted of sexual offences with minors than females. But who knows what doesn't get reported.

    I agree with you that there is an unfortunate tendency to think a male victim was "lucky", but a 15 year old boy can be just as easily exploited as a 15 year old girl. However, when young children are the victims I think that society judges female offenders more harshly - there is this idea that its even worse for a woman to be the guilty one in these cases.

    What I find disturbing about the teenager-teacher scenario is the number of people who will attempt to justify the teacher's behaviour. I just don't understand what people find acceptable or appealling about 'dating' children and no matter how you dress it up that's what it is.

    And anyone who is in a position of power or authority and uses that to abuse or manipulate the people in their care is the lowest of the low. Not just thinking of teachers but doctors, carers, prison officers ... there's no excuse for it.

  • There will always be the "you lucky b****r" scenario when a young lad is involved, and this will prevent prosecutions on predatory women. So the true story will never unfold.

    As for the Teacher/pupil thing (and yes Doctors, Nurses etc) there is no justification to abiuse that position of Authority or trust, and that is precisely why we have a 16 year old ruling, not 16 and a day or 15 and 360 days, but a precise line in the sand. As a person who always went for older partners anyway I find the attraction to youngsters strange to say the least, and as a father of two girls, I cringe at seeing older men chasing after them. 

  • Teachers running off with teenagers is not paedophilia. It's hugely inappropriate and a massive breach of the position of trust they've been placed in, but it is not the same as sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

  • Hey, runs-with-dogs... no need to get so sensible! I totally agree.

  • so runs with dogs..the age of the child is immaterial............so if you take advantage of the 11 and 12 year old who have already hit puberty.or the 9 and 10 year olds that have hit puberty.............you just class it as inappropriate...........like swearing infornt of your mother type offenceimage

    just because a child has physically hit puberty then it doesn't mean they have emnotionally.which is why they have chosen an age that should help protect the majority........

     This links into my worries with the modelling industry that promotedsthe ideal womans figure of one that is pre-pubescent.......so if men want that figure that they are told as perfect.they either need to find a model / one of the few naturally skinny  people.or someone who is under 11image

  • The problem with what you say, though I understand it seren, is that there are plenty of 'legal' teenagers, not to mention 20 year olds, who are emotionally deficient. RWD didn't say this was a good thing for the teacher to have done, but it's clearly not the same as, say, having sex with a five year old.

  • Yes but as was pointed out on the other thread - them both being wrong doesn't make them both paedophilia.   Calling that teacher a paedophile (on the evidence we have) is incorrect.   

    Also I'm not sure the modelling industry particularly influences men's perceptions of women.   Aren't models normally modelling stuff to sell to women - at least the super thin cat walk models.   I'd have a guess that if you look in magazines aimed at men that use sexualised pics of women either to sell stuff or sell the magazine most of them will not resemble young girls (I'm guessing because of course I never read such publications ! )   

    x-post with the previous one

  • runs-with-dogs wrote (see)

    Teachers running off with teenagers is not paedophilia. It's hugely inappropriate and a massive breach of the position of trust they've been placed in, but it is not the same as sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

    check out the dictionary definition of paedophilia - an adult who is sexually attracted to children.  now if that isn't the same as "sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children" then I don't know what is!  careful on your use of terms

    I think what you mean however is that teachers running off with children under 16 may not necessarily be defined as paedophilia as there is no proof - yet, and may never be - that he was sexualy attracted to her.  lots of inference but no proof.  so until something comes to light to say that he was sexually attracted to her, he cannot be defined as a paedophile.   he is so far simply classed as a child abductor.

    anyway, back to the OP.  

     

  • seren nos wrote (see)

    so runs with dogs..the age of the child is immaterial............so if you take advantage of the 11 and 12 year old who have already hit puberty.or the 9 and 10 year olds that have hit puberty.............you just class it as inappropriate...........like swearing infornt of your mother type offenceimage

    just because a child has physically hit puberty then it doesn't mean they have emnotionally.which is why they have chosen an age that should help protect the majority........

    Seren, I think you're massively misunderstanding me. (Apart from the fact that none of these teachers are having sex with with 9 year old kids who hit puberty early, they're having sex with with 14 and 15 year old kids, making your point about kids hitting puberty at no fixed age but earlier and earlier perfectly valid but slightly non-relevant.) I'm not saying it's not a big deal, I'm saying that by definition, they are NOT paedophiles. I just dislike seeing the word being misused. If you're going to call a teacher who has sex with a 15 year old a paedophile, then what are you going to call someone who takes and swaps photos of babies being raped? The two are a world apart and surely no-one would seriously class them in the same category.

    For the record, I do think teachers pulling stunts like this should be jailed. They're breaking the conditions of their employment and they're breaking the law. I just don't really see them as sexual predators or sexual offenders, even though they are having sex with under 16s. It's almost always a consensual undertaking, even though in the eyes of the law a 15 and three quarter year old is deemed incapable of giving consent.

  • Legal age of consent has in the past been hugely arbitrary anyway. Up until 2001ish, it was 16 for heterosexuals, 21 for homosexual men, but no age of consent was set for lesbians. So a 22 year old man having sex with a 20 year old man would have been classed as a sex offender yet a female teacher having sex with a 14 year old pupil wouldn't. Bonkers!

  • they are still children under 16 so by definition they are a paedophile.......

    what definition would you use to define a paedophile if having sex with children isn't good enough........

    its quite clear by definition.you want to make it blurred depending on who has done it...........

    by law sex can not be consensual under 16..................so if the 5 year old agrees to let you have sex with her because you gave her a bag of sweets is it ok then.......

    no its not...............so where do you draw the line if you don't think 16 is right......

  • Well, if you're in France, it's 15. The line is pretty arbitrary, which I think your post makes clear. I don't think anyone is saying he didn't break the law, but I think the term 'paedophilia' is very emotive and tends to summon up images of vile rape on very young children (however correct it may or may not be being used in this case).

  • But it's not 'my' definition or your definition we're talking about.

    A paedophile is generally defined as a person who gains sexual gratification from contact with pre-pubescent children (La Fontaine, 1990; Howitt, 1995; Leberg, 1997; Silverman & Wilson, 2002). Medically, the definition is someone who has a primary or exclusive interest in pre-pubescent children, generally age 13 or younger, though (as you say) the onset of puberty does vary.

    I didn't say I don't think 16 is right, I said that technically, having sex with a 15 year old is not paedophilia. I don't think it's a term that should be thrown around lightly. I don't want to blur the age at which someone can have sex with a teenager, I'm just saying that it's not paedophilia.

  • And in Spain, it's 13!

  • Teachers having sex with 14 and 15 year old kids is rape, because 14 and 15 year old kids are legally unable to consent.

    Teachers having sex with 16 and 17 year old kids is 'Abuse of a Position of Trust' this is a criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act.

    It is not simply 'inappropriate', it is criminal.

     

  • Should probably qualify that by saying that the legal definition of rape would pretty much make it impossible for a female to be guilty of it, but there are plenty of other offences that would apply. 

  • Re. your first comment abou 14 and 15 year olds being unable to give consent: Under the Sex Offender's Act 2003, sex with a pre-pubescent child (13 or under) is considered statutory rape, whereas this is not the case if a child is above 13.

    So while the sex is still illegal, the child is deemed able to give consent. I didn't actually know this before now, but the discussion interested me so I just went away and looked it up...

  • The way I rwad it runs with dogs.the only difference at 14 and 15 is where there is doubt as to whether the adult thought that the child is over 16.............

    when they are 13 or under they can not use theat as an excuse.if over 13 the defendant can bring into consideration that they thought the child was over 16.........

    in the case of a teacher then this could not be thecase 

  • Because having sex with a child under 13 is a strict liability offence (which means that even if the defendant made an honest mistake about the age of the victim), it doesn't mean that it is a defence to say that a 14 or 15 year old child consented.

    The SOA has this to say about consent:

    " a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

    The UK law simply does not view children under the age of 16 as having the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, so it is impossible for them to give consent. Because it is not a strict liability offence, and to be guilty of rape the defendant would also have to have the intention to commit the offence, then if a genuine mistake is made to the age of the child consent may be a defence.

    That is not to say that in these cases the CPS might decide that they should try a lesser offence, or a jury might not find the defendant guilty of rape, but if you are looking at it hypothetically, then sex with a person who the defendant knows is under the age of 16 is rape.

  • Spot on Seren.

  • Google suggests that the post over the page is correct - it's not legally rape - although the link is 6 years old so the law may have changed (seems unlikely though). 

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm

    So can we now all accept that this teacher is not a paedophile and has not raped this girl - what he has done is abuse a position of authority and possibly committed other offences to do with leaving the country with her.     

    It's not equivalent legally or morally to the kind of stuff Jimmy Savile was getting up to - someone like that deserves to rot in jail the teacher should get maybe 6 months tops imo.   Of course I'm assuming that there was no element of coercion or calculation in what he did - in other words he was just an immature weak minded infatuated idiot.   

  • Seems that countries in Europe can agree on the shape of a banana but not on the age of consent.
  • Popsider you make a poor point, you almost condone what the Teacher has been up to, but you're quick to find Jimmy Savile guilty.

    The teacher is going to be prosecuted so whether or not you choose to label him a paedophile or think of him as unlucky, it is immaterial, he has basically labelled himself. There is another angle and that is the teaching profession can move from school to college to Uni, and back to school without too much exposure into the world of industry, business and life in general, despite all the training this can leave people without the worldly skills and the maturity that you sometimes need in life.

  • You seem to have a history of fucking people in authority KK. Did I ever tell you i run this forum?
  • KK,

    ROLF

     there is now wine on my keyboard.

     

  • popsider wrote (see)

    Google suggests that the post over the page is correct - it's not legally rape - although the link is 6 years old so the law may have changed (seems unlikely though). 

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm

    So can we now all accept that this teacher is not a paedophile and has not raped this girl - what he has done is abuse a position of authority and possibly committed other offences to do with leaving the country with her.     

     


    That link is a copper talking from his own personal opinion, and down the link are comments that he's on "very dicey ground", and the "law is very clear".

    Let's get to simple definitions, a paedo is someone sexually attracted to a child.

    Is a 15year old not a child these days?

    If you have a 14/15 year old daughter and you hear some 30-40year old man was having an affair with her, would you change your mind I wonder?

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.