Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Child molester and victim still together 18 years later

Rate this topic


JASKN

Recommended Posts

Ironically, Mary Kay Letourneau's now-husband of ten years says he would not approve of their two daughters having a sexual relationship with one of their teachers.

Was the original affair wrong? When did it become right? Was a seven-year prison sentence justified?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mary-kay-letourneau-fualaau-vili-fualaau-detail-path/story?id=30160737#.VSgVIE0dbQg.twitter

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original affair certainly wasn't done with the consent of Mary's husband. He alerted the authorities and later divorced her when she became pregnant again. She crossed the line of a teacher/student relationship, which the onus would be on her to uphold.

 

Vill had an inkling that the counseling that it wasn't very objective. Considering the interview is nearly 18 years after the fact, gave time to reshape his perspective on the ideas of what constitute the 'right kind of support' needed at the time. He seemed to know that something was amiss, and that nobody around him knew how to deal with the situation either. In this sense, he had to decide for himself what was right for his life.

 

Vill was at the age of consent to enter a marriage agreement with her after the internment.

 

As to the basis of determining the proper or the just length of sentencing, what all goes into it? In this case, she was giving a parole opportunity after 6 months, and violated the terms set.

 

Looking at a related thread on this note, Objective penalty, statutory rape is a violation of an individuals rights, putting them in a situation to make a decision prior to reaching an age where the framework for making such a choice exists. This comes up in the legal age for drinking, voting, entering into contracts, etc., as far as age somehow enabling the rational faculty.

Edited by dream_weaver
Added reference thread with comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 is very young, and this woman's actions are morally abhorrent (and should be illegal) no matter what we call them, but we shouldn't call them child molestation. Childhood ends at puberty, and sexually abusing children is obviously a far worse crime than sex with a willing, post-pubescent minor. They should be classified differently.

 

But yes, the sentence, considering that she violated her parole agreement, was probably justified. A sliding scale, where the offender is sentenced to a short prison term plus parole until the victim turns 20, seems like the best punishment. And that's exactly what was done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my questions. I think my remaining problem is with the culture's apparent evasion of young sexuality. A blind eye is turned to adolescents having sex with adolescents, but when one party is an adult, it's considered one of the most abhorrent sins. Ignorance of the sin of young sexuality (two adolescent parties) is "innocent," but knowledge of the age context (one adult) is guilty.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my questions. I think my remaining problem is with the culture's apparent evasion of young sexuality. A blind eye is turned to adolescents having sex with adolescents, but when one party is an adult, it's considered one of the most abhorrent sins. Ignorance of the sin of young sexuality (two adolescent parties) is "innocent," but knowledge of the age context (one adult) is guilty.

I'm sure there are a lot of bad reasons for this double standard, but one good reason is that in an adult-minor relationship an adult can be psychologically dominant, and minors aren't equipped to handle that psychological pressure and refuse to do something they don't really wish to do. In other words, a minor will often have a lot of trouble saying no to an adult (especially one in a position of authority, like a teacher).

 

Minor-minor relationships, on the other hand, are much more on an equal footing. So it's less likely that a teenager can be pressured into doing something they don't want to do, by someone close to their age.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JASKN, I have been questioning the arbitrary age limitations our society places on any number of activities for years, now.  They confuse me.

 

Was I somehow more capable of making good decisions on my 18th birthday than on my 17 years, 364th day?  I have had people say "you have to draw the line somewhere," but I think that that line is poppycock.  As you note, sexuality between sexually functional adolescents is "ok" (excepting the objections of religious belief), and so much so that there are many states with so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws that protect a partner who has reached the age of majority before the other reaches the arbitrarily defined age of consent.

 

Should 40-year-olds attempt to woo 13-year-olds, or 18-year-olds?  Likely not, but not because it's somehow immoral or harmful.  It seems to me that a well-adjusted 40-year-old would prefer someone of comparable age, because sexuality should require admiration.  How does a 40-year-old admire a 13-year-old?  

 

The same considerations extend to arbitrary lines for contracts and for drinking and for voting.  I dislike the arbitrary.

 

Does anyone have a well-reasoned argument for "age of consent" and "age of majority" statutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not that someone is more mature on their 17 year, 364th day then the next day on their 18th birthday.  The issue is that for a law to be objective it has to define a standard.  Every kid is different so creating a sliding scale up to some kind of peer or judicial review simply makes the process more complex and subjective then picking x date.  If the date seems wrong then the issue is to change the date at that point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JASKN, I have been questioning the arbitrary age limitations our society places on any number of activities for years, now.  They confuse me.

 

Was I somehow more capable of making good decisions on my 18th birthday than on my 17 years, 364th day?  I have had people say "you have to draw the line somewhere," but I think that that line is poppycock.  As you note, sexuality between sexually functional adolescents is "ok" (excepting the objections of religious belief), and so much so that there are many states with so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws that protect a partner who has reached the age of majority before the other reaches the arbitrarily defined age of consent.

 

Should 40-year-olds attempt to woo 13-year-olds, or 18-year-olds?  Likely not, but not because it's somehow immoral or harmful.  It seems to me that a well-adjusted 40-year-old would prefer someone of comparable age, because sexuality should require admiration.  How does a 40-year-old admire a 13-year-old?  

 

The same considerations extend to arbitrary lines for contracts and for drinking and for voting.  I dislike the arbitrary.

 

Does anyone have a well-reasoned argument for "age of consent" and "age of majority" statutes?

Seems like you're arbitrarily drawing the line at 13 years old. Why 13 years old? Why not a 12 year and 364 day old? Or, if you're OK with that, why not a 12 year and 353 day old? You're OK with that too? How about a 12 year and 352 day old?

 

See where this is going yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like you're arbitrarily drawing the line at 13 years old. Why 13 years old? Why not a 12 year and 364 day old? Or, if you're OK with that, why not a 12 year and 353 day old? You're OK with that too? How about a 12 year and 352 day old?

 

See where this is going yet?

 

I don't have a practical solution to offer, but I think this is an interesting question.  There doesn't seem to be any good reason to replace one arbitrary line with another, although... I think we can agree that setting the age of consent at, like, 36 would be ridiculous and awful and far too late.  Setting it at 6, ridiculous, awful, far too early.  18 is one recognized standard, but it's not the only common one,  16 for instance is the age of consent in Canada and several US states.  So maybe we can find merits in 13 that we cannot in 16 or 18, or maybe vice versa*, which is to say that these lines do not seem to me to be wholly arbitrary.

 

It seems to me that we're aiming at something real -- some kind of mixture of physical and mental maturity.  If we could determine some way of identifying exactly what it is we're after, and then measuring it, maybe that would go some way in suggesting a (more) proper standard.  Could it even be an individual assessment?

 

______________

 

* Speaking personally, and based mostly on what I remember of my own adolescence, 13 sounds too young, 18 a touch naive, and 16 probably about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it even be an individual assessment?

I don't see why not. Once a child hits puberty, it's pretty ridiculous to act like they're still pre-sexual by hiding facts about their bodies and urges from them, as if it doesn't exist. The separate but related issue is legal recognition of independence. Legally, it's tricky when a kid becomes sexual at 13, their parents forbid sexual activity (even if they've educated the kid about his own sexuality), but the kid has sex anyway. I suppose it would follow that it would also be tricky morally, as an adult outside party.

 

But, I still come back to the blind eye toward young sexuality. Personally, I think it's ridiculous. I can't think of a single young sexual "experience" (broadest sense, here) which "scarred" me for life. I even remember thinking, "When am I supposed to feel violated..?" It all seemed so ridiculous to me at the time, when I was younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Historically, at least in the pop culture (though not in LeTourneau's case), we've had another double standard: sex between man and an underage partner is pervy and criminal, but between a woman and a boy it's charming.  Tadpole (more) is a case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically, at least in the pop culture (though not in LeTourneau's case), we've had another double standard: sex between man and an underage partner is pervy and criminal, but between a woman and a boy it's charming.

Leftover Christian sexual stigmatizing, coupled with a generally higher male sex drive? Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...