From an evolutionarly/selfish gene standpoint:

From the male veiwpoint a young and healthy girl is an ideal partner, because good health means she is more likely to be a good breeder. And youth means there is less chance of her carying another male's genetic heritage. Societal adendum: virgin = NO chance of carrying another male's genetic heritage.

From the viewpoint of the female, an older and successful male is one who has proven himself and is a better bet when it comes to choosing a partner for the purpose of providing for themselves and their children.

These are the basic "imperatives" which underly sexual behaviour in humans, because in humans it takes a long time and a lot of effort for the "investment" to pay off genetically in the form of another generation (grandchildren).


Taken to extremes this results in sequestration of females, polygamy, arranged marriages and child brides.

It also explains "mall rats" who exchange peeks and other sexual favours for "presents".


In the past a relationship such as this one would have resulted in a severe hiding for the bloke if he was a ne'r do well in the eyes of society or the girl's parents, or a shotgun wedding if he had the basic means to provide suitable support. Today with shotgun weddings essentially banned, the remaining option, a severe kicking, is delivered with great relish, first in the courts and then in the wider community with shunning, labeling as a pervert, or in extreme cases a physical beating, sometimes to the point of permanent incapacitation or death.

The same genetic "imperatives" also explain why a step parent is far more likely to abuse or kill a child that is not their own.

Looked at from a dispassionate viewpoint there are really only two tenable solutions to todays "problem" of underage sex: A return to the old ways of protecting/preserving a female child's virtue by any means possible, up to and including homicide. Or a complete disconection between sex for pleasure and sex for procration.


@malaise: So close and yet so far. Modern society does not properly teach self control. We are told that it is a virtue, and it is an incredible testament to basic humanity that on the whole we do practice it, but the messages that bombard us teach an entirely different lesson. One of entitlement and of immediate gratification.

@MadAboutHarry: Illegal and ill advised are two very different things. That you have twice conflated one with the other sugests that your responses are far more visceral than rational.

@Gwyndolyn: See above for the why. Creepy? Almost certainly because that is what you were taught, but also I'm sure at least just a little flattering, and I'll lay odds that it did not affect in any way your dressing/presenting to impress/attract.

@girl gone mad: No it is not about low self esteme, though it is a certainty that some individuals do take adavantage of that to get their own way. The ultimate "reasoning" that really is below the level of reasoning, is that young girl + older male is the most successful breeding strategy. It is not an ousized desire for the material (athough cultural pressures do indeed encourage such in pursuit of the almightly dollar) it is an underlying "need" for guaranteed support and protection.

@Fire1: Dress codes/mores are indeed society's way of marking certain individuals as "off limits". However, what you say about precocious puberty is largely irrelevant in the face of the demonstrable historical facts. It may be that such makes early maturing children vulnerable to spur of the moment acts, but it does not negate the fact that many many girls were married off well in advance of (full) physical maturity in the past so as to minimise the likelyhood of cuckolding.

Pandemic? You really do not have any proper understanding of the past. That which is completely unacceptable today (for any number of perfectly valid reasons) was not just tollerated but actively encouraged in the past (or still is elsewhere), for reasons which were(are) equally valid at the times (or in their place even today).

@MineralMan: Soul? A somewhat problematical concept. Let's equate it to a more graspable concept "ID". Now can you (or any other truly self honest male) tell me that you have never, ever, entertained thoughts about "off limits" girls, which if brought out into the open, would be considered inappropriate? This mans actions certainly put him at odds with what is appropriate in society here and now, but the thoughts and feelings behind those actions are quite normal. We are not talking about a ten/twelve year old girl but a young near (in the recent past (and elsewhere even today) full) adult who has been artificially decreed a child as a way of perpetuating certain patriarchial values.

@kestrel91316: If she were twelve I'd completely agree with you. And I'd agree again if his behaviour was a part of a larger pattern involving other girls. She isn't, she is sixteen, and there is nothing to indicate a pattern of behaviour on his part, not even to indicate that he actively set out to seduce this girl.

@Caliman73: Where to begin and what is the solution? My understanding is that such "needy" individuals have been "programmed" to view their own self worth in the context of their relationship to a dominating personality. Shouldn't, at some point, their complete healing require a full exploration/examination of sexual matters, given that sex is one of the easiest and most damaging way in which one individual can get their hooks into another? And yet such is expressly forbidden by law.

The only parallels between the two situations (healer/patient, teacher/student) is that impropper subjugation of one to the other is to be prevented. Certainly guidelines towards the ends of preventing such subjugation are highly desireable things, but to make it a matter of law to arbitrarily and unequally punish simply because there is sex involved is a recipe for disaster.

@Catshrink: Strongly defined guidelines, most definitely yes. Absolute uncrossable boundaries, where the law in general is observed, equally certainly not. "No harm, no foul" should be the first and possibly only criterion when it comes to situations like this, and as far as I'm concerned an outraged parent does not constitute demonstrable harm.

If there was an exchange of favours then certainly arses need to be kicked nine ways from Sunday, and this includes those of the mercenary little "darlings" who keep offering until they find an individual weak willed enough to accept. However, if anotherwise legal relationship develops absent such an exchange, who's fucking business is it but theirs. Apart from an investigation to determine that there was no untoward pressure involved, we need to butt out, not decree that some arbitrary line has been crossed and as such someone MUST be punnished.

Such arbitrary rules are one major reason for the angst you suffered when you quite rightly confiscated a student's "electronic device". By assuming the foul, you were placed in the situation of proving the negative, that you had done no harm, rather than the supposedly wronged party having to demonstrate that they had indeed been harmed.

@blueamy66: And assuming that teacher had been a remotely decent human being, what likely harm would have eventuated if things had developed? The unscrupulous will make their choice on the basis of how likely it is he or she thinks it is that they will be caught. What advantage is there in punnishing the innocent on the basis of what some other individual might or might not do?

@cherokeeprogressive: As the father of a teenage girl, it is your responsibility as a parent to provide her with the necessary teaching, that she is not vulnerable to the "empty blandishments" or unfair offers of quid pro quo, of an older (any aged) male seeking to plant his seed in a fertile furrow. A parent's failure to do so, makes them just as culpable as the "silver tongued devil" who manages to have his nefarious way. If you did your best and matters go pear shaped regardless, then your child would be far better served by your support than your "justifiable" outrage and desire to see someone pay.

That you make the distinction "girl" suggests you are taking the evolutionary/genetic stadpoint, and that at some underlying level you are more in favour or protecting your genetic heritage than an individuals personal wellbeing.