TheStatutoryApe said:
My main point regarding the difference between males and females in regards to sex was that if the male achieves a state of arousal and preforms normal sexual intercourse it is quite difficult to declare that the "victimizer" coerced the "victim" into having sex. A female can engage in normal sexual intercourse without being aroused but ofcourse the problem here is that it would be quite difficult for a defense to prove that the female was aroused and desirous to protect their client from further charge if the court were to handle these cases the way I'm suggesting.
Actually, this is not a reliable indicator of consent. It's not hard to imagine that a 14-yr-old boy would be physically aroused by a pretty woman, but not actually have the intention of having intercourse or consenting to it...afterall, 14-yr-olds often find themselves in a state of arousal that leaves them rather embarrassed because they do know acting upon it would be inappropriate.
In cases of rape against women, rapists have tried to claim that it wasn't rape because a woman has sufficient (trying to think of a way to say this without being overly graphic)...secretions...that she must have "wanted it." [Sorry, no source on this, I was told that by a college rape counselor who was training the residence life staff on how to handle sexual assault victims if we were the first person they came to. She added that sometimes this arousal left the women confused as well, thinking maybe they did "want it" if they had that reaction, and somehow they felt they were to blame, or felt guilty over that reaction.] However, the problem with that is that any general arousal, such as fear, can translate into such a physiological state in a woman. Beyond that, even if someone is attracted to someone else, it doesn't mean they've consented (such as in the case of date rape).
As for a schoolteacher, the authority that person holds over the teen is the bigger issue, as with any older adult luring in a 14-year-old. Lots of 14-yr-olds, of both sexes, have crushes on teachers, but it doesn't make it a healthy thing to encourage them to indulge in that and let a crush turn into a sexual encounter. Sex with a student isn't even considered acceptable if they are a 21-yr-old college senior and you're their professor. There's both an unfair balance of power and the resultant conflict-of-interest. The kid may have even said yes if he was told he could get an A in the class for it too. Then it's about the same scenario as the secretary sleeping with the boss to get a promotion, which is at least defined as sexual harassment. The difference is that a 14-yr-old is not emotionally mature enough to make such an important decision. At that age, impulsiveness often wins out over forethought.
As for the argument being presented that a 14-yr-old can be tried as an adult for murder, that simply is not true in every case. For the most part, they are still tried as juveniles unless it can be proven they had sufficient maturity and understanding of what they were doing to merit being tried as an adult. A psychiatric evaluation would be involved in making such a determination.
