A schoolteacher who admitted to having a prolonged sexual fling with a thirteen year old student (it started when he was twelve) was sentenced to twenty years in the slammer today.
See this article:
And this angry blogpost:
Oh. The. Humanity. And whatever.
Twenty years sounds about right.
Not for sex.
For abusing her position of trust and authority.
If we're gonna slam senators for porking pages, priests for fondling altar boys, and famous European cinmatographers for drugging and sodomizing a pubescent Southern California girl, it makes sense to also prosecute a deranged nymphomaniac in the Midwest (or wherever Idaho is) for jumping a cubscout in her care.
It's primarily a question of not abusing the trust that society has, or has placed, in one.
People in high position should be beyond reproach, like Caesar's wife (Messalina is NOT the example that should come to mind at this point).
I like the concept of teenagers having sex, lord knows several of my peers have jumped at the opportunity. But I appreciate the concept primarily because I like to speculate about the sleaze-factor in other people's lives.
It's their sex, their wiggly bits, and their potential oozing infection plus drama, heartache, despair, and insane lust overriding all sense of reason, and all common sense.
Sex is entertainment, especially in the hands of loonies.
Or in whichever part of their anatomy they chose to use.
But a thirteen year old boy is hardly the equal of some crazed cougar who shouldn't be teaching in the first place. Most boys of that age are utter idiots anyway, with only one thing on their minds. It's not like they can actually relate to a women at that age. Other than their moms.
TOBACCO ARTICLE INDEX UPDATE
4 hours ago