Replies

"For one thing girls can get pregnant."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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