Because she’s hot
Posted on
December 20, 2007 by
Gideon
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Jami Floyd over at Court TV calls the media and politicians out on why female sex offenders are not made into monsters: because they’re hot, because they’re women and because women like them were the objects of the fantasies of the men that now control our legislatures and media. She’s got a point.
Debra Lafave, the FL teacher who was spared prison time after having sex with a teen, is back in court facing a probation violation because she spoke to a 17 year old female co-worker. The first time around, her lawyer seemingly argued that she shouldn’t go to jail because she was too attractive. Something about meat and lions. WTF.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Female sex offenders also are generally speaking a lot less of a danger to their male victims. Moreover, the offense is far less likely to involve physical coercion (and I know that statutory rape doesnt have a consent defense). Finally, pregnancy of the victim is not an issue. Does that justify disparate treatment? I don’t know, but if I had one prison bed and I could put a 30 year old man who had sex with a 12 year old girl in it, I would do so over putting a 30 year old woman who had sex with a 12 year old boy in that prison bed.
George Carlin said he had a name for Lefave’s victim, “unf*ckinbelievably lucky.” Like that wasn’t every schoolboys’ dream.
Feministas may be offended, but I think the answer is that simple.
I would agree with the above comments. I think also that if you get a 15 year old guy, his friends are all going to be like “Yeah man - you’re so cool - you scored with an older hot chick” whether it’s a hot teacher or a MILF…
When I was in high school, I would’ve given my eye-teeth for the chance to be accosted by Ms. Lafave.
Oh, and what’s wrong with that Danbury Santa? Seems to me that his is another great position to be in
Seriously, where were teachers like this when I was in school? Is it wrong that I think that way?
YSMTR, it is normal.
I disagree with her. First of all, women do have a pretty good hand in running the country. Especially as lawyers.
Second of all, I think there WOULD be outrage if this woman, herself (or with help) beat up her “victim” and raped him. Instead, all we have is a statutory rape and an arbitrary definition of “non-consensual.” (Note: there is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about setting ages of consent, but an AGE of consent measured in years IS arbitrary.)
But, let’s take this one step further: maybe it is GOOD that these women are given a “pass” in the press. Maybe it is the only way we can have a serious discussion about these laws is by presenting likeable, attractive defendants to the masses. Since few legislatures are going to vilify her, we can discuss changes to sex laws in terms of PRETTY villainesses, rather than the typical ugly defendants.
Oh, while we are at it, how about we call for punishments of the boys and girls that fantasied about their teachers — just to be fair, you know.
Punishment for fantasies? Um…I take back everything I previously wrote. Bad commenter. Bad commenter.
It’s often presumed without evidence that female sex offenders receive lighter sentences than men. They are thusly punished in the media and the court of public opinion for having been given unfairly light treatment. I’ve investigated this issue in Utah courts and (I believe) soundly proved that women are 1, usually committing objectively less vile sex crimes, and 2, not getting sentences any lighter than their male counterparts. William Saletan did the same investigation for Slate. Check it out: http://www.slate.com/id/2134158/
Jesse, thanks for the comment and the link! I was actually expecting you to comment on another post (this one), but maybe you didn’t disagree. Happy Holidays!