iffering from kiddy porn, this page is about kids and sex, but mostly with each other, or when it comes up in legal issues, or when it's in the news related to sex ed, or other such things.

More recent updates are added on top.

February 23, 2004

I'm sort of sick of the topic, but here's another one of those, "Why the hell was I in junior high fifteen years too early?" type stories.

6 boys and 2 girls at Workman Middle School in Pensacola have been suspended for 10-days after reportedly being involved in sexual acts during school hours on school grounds. It's alleged all the boys lined up in the boy's bathroom, while the 2 girls went in to perform oral sex on them, while other students served as lookouts.

Workman Middle School is for 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. It's believed all the students involved are in the 7th grade.

Word is all the kids who "participated" in the event will be expelled. Ah good, give them more time home alone in the day to have some real sex.

Seriously, what do you do with a 12 or 13 y/o kid who has been expelled for having oral sex in a school bathroom?  Is the expelling just from one particular school, or from the whole school district?  So do you bus or drive them elsewhere?  Or do you have to home school, or send them to a private school?  Personally, I'd send them to military boarding school, where the girls would have the slut beaten out of them and the boys would have no change at all.  I mean they'd still be doing plenty of oral sex in a bathroom, but their positions would be switched, if you see what I mean.  I'm not sure it's a long term solution, but it would make me feel better, as a parent, and at least give me someone to blame for my kid being a worthless little shit.

After all, isn't that what parenting is all about?

September 11, 2003

This story made me laugh out loud. Well, mostly the last line of it. I'll quote the entire news item, since it's so short.

A form master at a junior high school at Helgeland was exposed for having sexual intercourse with his students when a photo lab developed his pictures. A total of five girls have allegedly been molested by the 34-year-old man.

The photos were so extreme that the lab sent copies to the police after they had received several films for development, according to the paper VG.

The girl in the pictures was 14 years old, and the teacher is now suspected of having sex with a total of five girls while they were in attending junior high school.

According to VG, the students had crushes on the teacher, who is described as being popular with the students. During questioning, the man explained that he too was in love with the students and that they have been love relationships.

The police arrested the man April 4. The teacher has been released from custody, but he is not allowed to visit two of the girls.

So he is not allowed to visit two of the girls... but he can "visit" the other three?  Goddamn, that's some lenient penal code in Norway.

I like the brains on the teacher too; seduce half the female class into bed, and then get caught when you take dirty pictures to a photo store to get them developed.  Someone buy that man a digicam.

¤ Another amusing sex story, this one from Canada, land of the beaver. So to speak.

TORONTO --  A Simcoe-area teacher who showed a 17-year-old student a porno flick and then coaxed her into lesbian and threesome sex has been kicked out of teaching. Leanne Carla Hanselman, 37, who worked in a Simcoe-area high school, had sex with the Grade 12 student on "numerous occasions" and had her join in a three-way romp with Hanselman's boyfriend, the Ontario Teachers' College confirmed. Hanselman was with Grand Erie District School Board for nine years when she dragged the girl into sex in May 2000. She was dismissed from her job in January 2001.

After first inviting the student for dinner and drinks at restaurants and at her apartment, Hanselman showed her a porno tape and then kissed her.

Over the next six months, "Hanselman engaged in sexual activity on a number of occasions with the student or her boyfriend and the student," says an account in the OTC teachers' magazine.  On occasions, the girl stayed overnight at Hanselman's apartment.

The emphasis is mine, but I had to throw that in there after reading it.  Sure, it's bad for a teacher to have sex with a student, especially if the student is underage (well, underage in the US, I dunno the age of consent in Canada); it's the whole student/teacher thing, where one has power over the other. But where is the evidence of coercion in terms of the sex? It sounds like a 17 year old girl found a hot older woman she traded carpet munching with, and even got in on some action with the teacher's hot older man boyfriend.

I'm not arguing the teacher being fired, but where does the article get "coaxed" and then "dragged" from, other than the editorial slant of the writer?  As if the 17 y/o was taken at gunpoint? Like she was some innocent virgin?  Sure she was... in 1997.

July 5, 2003

Three high school boys somehow managed to install multiple cameras in the girls locker room, and got video off of them for more than two years. The news item discusses a court's ruling that the tapes not be destroyed, since not all of the victims have yet been identified, and also since the various families of the girls are suing the school, and there are apparently shots of the school principle and other school officials looking for the cameras and not finding them.

I mostly found it amusing for the details of how many women the guys got on tape.

The criminal proceedings ended in December, when high school students Eddy John Newman, Ben Frankforter and Matt Thomas pleaded guilty to felony burglary charges and admitted they surreptitiously watched and filmed female athletes from locker room hideouts using multiple cameras for as long as two and a half years.

Twenty-eight plaintiffs are named in two civil suits — these are parents of girls' basketball and volleyball team members from around the state who used the Deer Lodge locker rooms during practices, games and tourneys, according to court documents. Their lawyer, Alan Blakeley of Missoula, says that number could swell to 600 as victims or potential victims come forward.

Testimony indicates the tapes included footage of female athletes from as many as 18 schools who were filmed and watched during or after almost every girls' basketball and volleyball game.

What a fricking gold mine! *cough* I mean it's all very very wrong, I mean the very concept that teenaged boys would try to peek at teenaged girls naked is just shocking and horrifying.  And to think, before the days of pinhole cameras guys had to settle for peering through cracks in the walls or drilling holes to get a peek.

I think the most amazing thing is that at no point in the article do the words, "selling images over the Internet" appear. Not the most entrepreneurial set of peeping Toms, were they?

February 22, 2003

This topic doesn't really interest me, but it's the sort of thing you've no doubt come to expect from this site, so here it is.

(And yes, whenever I say I don't want to talk about something, it invariably turns into a full size essay. Wonder if that'll happen today?)

LONDON (Reuters) - British school children are to be controversially asked to consider oral sex instead of intercourse as part of a drive to cut the country's high teenage pregnancy rate.

Sex education teachers are being trained to discuss with youngsters various "stopping points" on the road to full sex in a bid to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, the government said on Friday.

The idea is to encourage pupils to discover "levels of intimacy," including oral sex, which stop short of full sexual intercourse.

I think they should just train all the kids to be homosexuals, since then there wouldn't be any pregnancy worries.  They can switch back once they're in college and all the girls are on the pill.  Problem solved!

The whole kids having sex issue is a perpetually thorny one in the West, since we have this idea of teenagers as non-sexual.  Which is entirely contrary to human nature, and against all natural biology.  No other species (that I know of) holds off on sex a minute past the time it can physically engage in it, though for lots of types of animals the younger males never get laid, since they can't fight past the ranking bulls. But the females always begin to mate and breed immediately.

There are other aspects to this, however. Human females are about the only type of animal that are willing to engage in sex when they aren't actually in heat, (though the male success rate with this varies widely) and humans often take measures to enable them to engage in sex without the reproductive consequences. And humans have society and childhood is a time for training and learning things needed as an adult; animals don't really have any goals other than survival and reproduction, while humans generally do.

So my point is that humans defy biology in a lot of ways, but have valid reasons to do so.

The article goes on to quote "family groups" (code for right wing/Christians, usually) who have predictable objections.  Keep in mind that these are British conservatives, so they're actually pretty rational, and not just ranting about sin and Gomorrah, as they would be in the US.

"One thing leads to another," said Robert Whelan, director of the Family Education Trust. "It is hard enough for adults to hold back and is even more difficult for teenagers with their raging hormones."

Whelan also said oral sex was no protection against most sexually transmitted diseases.

"Delaying the onset of teenage sexual activity is the only way to cut teenage pregnancy," he told Reuters.

Of course the same hole is in his argument, which is that all abstinence-only "sex ed" ever does is increase the teen pregnancy rate. And make right wingers feel superior, since of course if their daughter gets knocked up they drive her to the next state for an abortion, while continuing to campaign against any tax dollars going to fund abortions for lower income people. I suppose if they ever succeed in getting abortion outlawed in the US quick trips to Canada will become far more popular.

The hard part about teen pregnancy is facing reality.  Kids are physically ready for sex at 13 or 14.  In lots of the world they'd be married and pregnant by 16 or 17 at the latest. It's just in the US and other Western Nations that there is this idea that teen pregnancy is something horrible and to be avoided. And it is, since the girls (and boys, assuming the rare marriage) are not capable of taking care of an infant very well, while maintaining their full time education, which they need to become productive citizens with decent jobs. It's hard enough for adults with stable relationships and good incomes to raise kids.

The easiest solution, aside from locking kids up in gender-segregated camps, would be to just get every girl on the pill, or some sort of birth control implant. You could preach all the "don't have sex" you wanted them, and whether they did or didn't, at least they wouldn't get knocked up.  Preggers forces the wrenching decision of "abortion or not", and while the best alternative (in terms of the girl's future well-being is probably adoption at birth, that's an extremely difficult decision to make as well. And even if that's her decision, she's got months of being pregnant, interrupting her schedule and work, not to mention the mine field of social and societal condemnation for her condition.

The mandatory universal birth control option is not discussed though, since the right wing puritanical types would never hear of it.  Neither would a lot of moderate or even liberal parents.  They might be less freaked by teen sex in general, but when it comes to their little angel, there is no ability to think straight.  Everyone thinks their kid is different and would never do that sort of thing, and it's only other people's kids who are getting knocked up.

The logic of it all is pretty suspect.  Schools educate about birth control and warn not to have sex for every sort of reason now, and kids have sex madly and often w/o birth control, largely since there is a stigma on buying it, and shopping for condoms is a good way to caught. And since they're super horny and often unsupervised after school with the parents working, and sex is everywhere in society.  All the "just say no" on earth isn't going to make a difference.

So parents need to decide whether they are more interested in taking doomed stands on meaningless morality issues, or if they are interested in keeping their children from getting knocked up, or herpes, or AIDS.

I think the best thing would be if parents were able to talk about sex and get their kids comfortable with it so they weren't so wildly curious and likely to lose control and indulge when they had the chance, no matter how much they might have been told to wait. But of course parents who would do that (like my mom did) would just provide birth control to their kids anyway (like my mom did), and not be so morally outraged and the prospect of them using it (like I did... not).

The religious/conservative view on sex ed is the least realistic.  They want kids to not have sex by telling kids not to have sex, and never mind human nature dooming that approach to failure. Normal sex ed works a bit better, since kids are aware of the consequences of sex, and aren't so hung up about it, and might plan ahead to not get pregnant, while still having fun and experimenting.

This new "have oral if you must, but don't fuck" approach the UK schools are planning isn't very realistic either, unless it's accompanied by condoms and the pill.  As the Christian guy said, "One thing leads to another."  This may mean that he's never gotten a really good hummer, and in fact I'd think that a pretty safe bet.  In any event, he is correct and shows some understanding of human nature, just this once. Kids would experiment, and unless girls were using blow jobs as a sort of self-defense, they'd still be screwing, sometimes, since teen boys usually have a tremendous "pussy fever" and can't stop short of intercourse, if only so they'll be able to tell their friends that they "went all the way". Possibly if the girls knew all about the "dangerous" time of the month they could use oral then, and give in to the short-lived and mildly-pleasurable intercourse the guy is so hot for the rest of the time.  But that's expecting a hell of a lot for a teacher to explain all of that and get the stupid kids to pay enough attention to learn about it, when just handing out the pill would be infinitely easier. Though that's not going to happen, as we should know by now.

You can look for this topic to continue to bedevil society for the foreseeable future.

March 18, 2002

Teacher has sex with blind student.  I know it's wrong, and 11 is a bit young, (Okay, it's a lot young. He couldn't even be capable of orgasm and ejaculation by then, could he?) but this is so clearly the best thing that's ever happened in the kid's life, and now the poor teacher gets busted.  There seems to be a lot more coverage of older women banging boys of late; there was some teacher in the UK that did 3 of her students around 15 years of age.

I sort of suspect that in the past this has just been overlooked, or nod and winked at by male cops, since being men, they don't see anything wrong with it, and know how much they would have loved that when they were boys.  Perhaps since more women are in positions of authority they are the ones being upset and forcing prosecution?

Most everyone seems to say, "lucky kids!" when they hear about this sort of thing.  Which is an interesting double-standard, since when we hear about a girl of 14 or 15 or so and a male teacher in his 20's or 30's, the condemnation is almost complete, though every man is secretly thinking, "damn, lucky bastard!"  My point on double standard is that in virtually every case the young boys are incredibly eager to do it and grateful for getting laid.  Young boys and young girls have tons of sex, and young girls are very happy and eager to get laid with older men, in a lot of the situations it happens in.  But adult women with boys get busted somewhat, while adult men with girls get all but electrocuted.  There's never any consideration if the kid wanted it, enjoyed it, was actually hurt, etc.

Being as kids aren't real difficult to manipulate or confuse or intimidate, I guess there can't be a whole lot of gray area, but at the same time if it's obvious the kid involved is mature and can think for themselves and has no objection to it, why make a big police deal about it?  Often it's like a 17 y/o with a 23 y/o teacher's aide.  People used to get married at 13 and 14, and still do in many countries.  It's just stupid to pick some arbitrary age and say that one side is illegal and the other side isn't.  Our judicial system isn't real well designed for intelligent, rational, discretionary decisions about this sort of thing, and one hysterical parent screaming to the media can ruin just about any cool, calm, logic anyway.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.