I have talked about this phenomenon before, but this latest Mrs. Robinson event (please look at it) has triggered a few further thoughts on the topic.
Let’s leave aside that the 38-year-old woman is not bad for an old broad (from a teenage boy’s perspective), with blue eyes and a sorta trailer-park-Elizabeth-Taylor look about her.
In my foul yoot, I might easily have availed myself of her offerings (certainly the sex and the booze part, but not the cash and definitely not the weed). What I would have done differently is kept my mouth shut. Now, the report on the affair [sic] is severely lacking in details, but this “fifteen-year-old” sounds like quite the little weasel, ratting the woman out and taking money from her bank account.
I’m going to ignore the fact that the woman is quite clearly demented and/or retarded, as witnessed by her stupid behavior, and I’ve already confessed to my ignorance as to why older women are doing this stuff in the first place. It is abundantly clear, however, that this youth took massive advantage of her. If I were to put a timeline on the various activities, my guess is that she invited him in for a little nookie — and maybe a beer to help him along — and then he quite possibly blackmailed her into all the other stuff: more booze, weed and visits to the ATM — all aided by the fact that she’d already committed a felony by having had sex with an underage boy. And the whole sorry thing came to light either because he bragged about his “conquest” (as teenage boys will do because, duh, teenage boys), or else he was busted with weed in his possession and howled, “The old lady gave it to me while we were having sex!” or some such excuse. Whatever.
Like I’ve said, I’m guessing because I have no proof of any of this and I don’t know what actually happened; but you have to admit, it’s certainly a plausible situation.
What makes it all the more tragic is that if the above scenario is close to the truth, then the woman fell foul of a kid who was, shall we say, mature beyond his years, and who could take advantage of her to a much greater degree than she ever took of him. Had this happened in, say, the 1950s or around that era, I’d be the first to look severely at the older woman. Nowadays, however, boys are a lot more venal and worldly, and more likely to be total shits about something like this.
I’m not excusing her behavior, by the way, nor am I “blaming the victim”; but you have to admit, the world has changed since statutory rape laws were enacted and not, I would suggest, for the better.
In a heart beat. When I was 15, you bet. And I would have not squealed on her either.
Course now I am all old and stuff so I can look down my nose and say “bad dog” but at 15? I would have been all over that.
I’d tap that too.
I went to Catholic school (decades ago); you wouldn’t have that sort of relationship with a nun.
It’s gotta be something in the water here in Florida.
Very strange, this new way of thinking over the past few decades. First, can a woman rape a man? I would say by definition no because rape is penetration and violence against the will of a woman which could impregnate her and in the very old days she would lose her value as a daughter and family member. Traditionally the wife and daughter were under the care and control of the father, head of the house and upon marriage he would “give away the bride” transfer control to the new husband. She was assumed to be intact in the nether-lands and any seed planted in her would be the grooms and entitled parts of his wealth and estate. Lots of property law and in the old days the brides father could send a sizable dowery with the bride which would involve a detailed contract signed and filed. For any people of substance or folks that had any land or anything of value there was an orderly way to pass that on down. Yep, women were chattel in the eyes of the law and not to be trespassed upon.
As for young men, going back centuries having a 14 year old stable boy, hung like a shetland pony, banging the mistress of the manor, after she had produced her first male heir, was considered great sport while frowned upon by general society. In other words for a young stud to get a bit of luscious older lady was considered to be a great learning experience and a bit of real good luck. High fives all around and everyone goes home smiling and happy. No harm no foul unless the older lady gets knocked up and then it was mostly her problem to work out.
Now when both sexes are considered equal under the law we have twisted things so far around that we call the fantastic adventure rape. Of course we also call it rape when older perverts bend young lads over and bugger them and while that is wrong in so many ways I would not call it rape because they are not going to get anyone pregnant and it was clearly against the law. My brain still lives in an older world.
I am also thinking the young man in the story above was a little weasel dick for not saying thank you madam and growing up and moving on with his life filing away a pleasant memory.
You Monster! How can you glorify the absolute evil of Rape by speaking about it as if . . . as if . . .
Oh, hell. Can’t do it. Never mind.
Where were women like this when I was 15?
(Why would a woman do this? Maybe because we’ve turned M/F relationships into such psycho-sociological traps these days that the allure of good sex uncomplicated by having to foster a relationship between societal-decreed enemies makes it into a win/win situation? Orgasms without agony.)
A while back I came up with theory that these women, and sexual aberrants in general, are not so much evil as they are immature, as in stunted psychological growth in the area of sexuality. This works out as seeking sex with someone who is of an equal/similar maturity. Examples for men would be pederasty/homosexuality, if you are stuck in that phase of sexual learning, and if you get past that to sex with the opposite sex, statutory rape scenarios. While my information on female sexual learning phases is vague at best, I think there is a similar modus operandi for them.
Chiz,
Yours is the first explanation I’ve ever seen which makes sense, is plausible and isn’t drenched in psychobabble. Thank you.
I thought this was going to be about Macron.
Another theory, possibly piggybacking on Chiz’s theory of the woman’s own stuntedness:
“Adult” males nowadays are so immature (RompHims, Fidget Spinners, aversion to firearms, etc.) that to her way of thinking, there’s not too much difference between a 35 year old “man” and a 15 year old “boy”. Of course, this theory goes swirling down the bowl when one takes into account that a 35 year old would likely be wise enough to keep his activities quiet if they involved felonies.
“the woman fell foul of a kid who was, shall we say, mature beyond his years, and who could take advantage of her to a much greater degree than she ever took of him…”
This is why there should be no “Romeo and Juliet” exemption to statutory rape. It’s rape not because one partner is much older than the other, but because one partner is underage and cannot give informed consent. It doesn’t matter who the other partner is; some minors are exceptionally clever and knowledgeable for their age, they can perpetrate complex crimes, including against other minors. There are minors who have committed six-figure stock swindles.