'never mind the completely nonchalant expression on this child sex abuser's face'

Media studies 101 for you. It's an attempt to show the woman as sexy and titillate the readers. Lucky boys is the subtext. I wouldn't worry, she's not likely to get a sentence comparable what to a male teacher would recieve.

I find it interesting that you think no psychological damage could occur and no effect on future relationships. Out of 5 things, that didn't even come up. Considering the priesthood even came up.

When a young girl wants sex with a teacher, there's all this concern that even if she is actively pursuing him it's only because she wasn't loved enough by her daddy, and she really just wants attention. There's the assumption this will affect her emotionally and have a bearing on future relationships.

But when the other way around, the only damage in your eyes is an STI and pregnancy and such.

I've often heard girls mature emotionally about 2 years in advance of boys. A 16yo girl and an 18yo boy is often a pretty even match

Pynchme,

I'm currently watching our Turtle tank with some concern, despite the hot weather, given the imminence of hell freezing over....I tend to agree with some of what H is saying.

Given the probable mind set regarding sex and 16 yo boys I doubt that any serious long term harm has been done there. (this of course is dependent on the specific lad involved)
Notwithstanding, she HAS broken the law.
The picture is pure staging... Media 101 as H has pointed out.

However, I have serious worries about the the second story that is clearly wrong on so many levels.

In essence, I hold the view that each case should be judged on their potential for harm. Not solely on some religious dogma influenced cultural arbitrarily drawn line. Keep in mind, that 21 was once the accepted age...then 18 ...now 16.
What has changed other than our attitudes?

NB.IMO Both cases deserve punishment. If I were a judge on these cases I MIGHT hand out different sentences simply because the potential for harm/re-offending are so different.

Zam you could only agree with Houellebecq if like him you read it from the perspective that I should have listed every type of harm. Just because I didn't list psychological damage; doesn't mean I don't perceive it. It's an absolute given in any adult/child episode of these types, as you'd be aware I am sure.

The listing of the priesthood Houellebecq isn't because of MY belief system; but because it might be his - I listed a broad type to demonstrate how an adult using a child can extinguish some of the child's life choices.

I do think the parents abusing is likely to do more damage (bleh like choosing between being bitten by a croc or a shark) because parents are the very foundation of one's beliefs about self. In either case though the damage that can be done by a breach of trust of either magnitude... anyway, the little one was younger/ both parents involved/ had been happening for longer... maybe pimped out as well. All that.

I'm undecided about the emotional maturity thing between an 18 yr old and a 16 yr old, but in general I think I agree about the level of harm .... certainly even if there was any it wouldn't be in the same ballpark as a breach of trust by someone who is an authority figure who is meant to protect and guide.

I agree about the media pic and sub-text - however, I thought the very existence of my post conveyed that I don't agree with the "lucky boys" POV.

H: <"When a young girl wants sex with a teacher... ">

That's assuming that a young girl both knows what sex is and wants it.
What if she was being affectionate because she had some romantic notion of love and marriage (or summin). In any case it doesn't matter much at all what the student wants; it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the adult to say no

'That's assuming that a young girl both knows what sex is and wants it.'

Congratulations! You're starting to get my point. It is ALWAYS assumed a young boy wants it, even as young as 13yo. Which is why her sentence will be much lower than if she were a male teacher sleeping with a female student.

If laws were to reflect the general attitude of society the age of consent for boys would be 13, and for girls 18.

In fact, with a lot of the feminist musings about the abusive predator male and the innocent virginal female, a 14 year old boy sleeping with a 17 year old girl should see himself in a lot of trouble.

Example...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/woman-who-had-sex-with--boy-avoids-jail-20091118-il7k.html

Can you imagine this if it was a man? Honestly?