http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569259.stm

A former US schoolteacher has married an ex-pupil 10 years after she raped him when he was just 12. Mary Kay Letourneau, 43, and Vili Fualaau married in a secret ceremony on Friday near Seattle.

Ms Letourneau was arrested in 1997 when pregnant with the couple's first child and admitted second-degree child rape.

She was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years' jail, most of it suspended. She had to serve the full term after she was caught having sex with Mr Fualaau.

She was released last August after having given birth to the couple's second daughter in jail.

'Tragic things'

The wedding was closely guarded after the couple gave exclusive rights to two television shows. The programmes, Entertainment Tonight and The Insider, insist they did not pay the couple.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41170000/jpg/_41170989_marys.jpg


The ceremony took place in Woodinville, about 20 miles (32km) north-east of Seattle in Washington state.

The couple's two daughters, Audrey, eight, and Alexis Georgia, seven, who lived in the care of Mr Fualaau's mother until Ms Letourneau's release, acted as flower girls.

Janet Annino, a producer on Entertainment Tonight, said: "[Ms Letourneau] arrived here with a sheet over her head. She had to lie down in the car to avoid the paparazzi."

Ms Letourneau was arrested in 1997 after her then husband, with whom she had four children, found love letters.

She told Entertainment Tonight: "There are tragic things that happen in everyone's life and this certainly was a tragedy.

"Those hard times pass and we had to both maintain a lot of strength... we're here and we're hopeful."

What the hell? :wtf:

Wow, what a fucked up family situation.

i watched e.t. about a month ago covering this story. the hosts were all yapping and smiling about how happy they are that these couple overcoming many difficulties through love. it was pretty sickening how they compared it to fairy tale coming true etc...i couldnt believe what i was hearing.

ok let me get this stight cuz im really weirded out so she raped a kid them went to jail then wen she was in jail she had sex with some dude and wen she got out she married the kid she raped wen he was 12 thats just freaky weird and stupid

weird and hard to undrstand

oww my brain hurts

oh yeah that, boy raped at 12 and purposed to her at 14 now he's 24 or something and she's 43 it's gross yet you love who you want to love and nobody should stop you

:wtf: That is so fucked up...

Ok the title really messes it up.

1. Yes the situation is really F'ed up

2. By law she "raped" him. But in all actuallity he willingly had sex with her. I mean everyone has had the hots for there teacher at one point or another.. (if you had an attractive teacher at one point X'D)

but yeah its really messed up 0-o

Yeah, that'd be totally weird to have a kid just twelve years younger than you. Probably most people would think it was your younger sister, and your wife was your mother.

that's sickenig to think about but deathX is right, it's only rape because he was a minor.

I was hearing about this on the radio, and it seems that when a woman has sex with a younger man, it's not considered very serious. (people may think she's a little crazy but not a dangerous criminal) When a man has sex with a girl, it's consided criminal and he's declared a dangerous sex offender....

I also looked up some other details on the internet, before posting my comments here on Aincient Clan, and found that this is FAR from the first time this sort of thing has happened... so the "men .vs. women double standard" and "what constitutes rape" questions have been around before. After reading a bit, here are my thoughts:

YES- there IS a double standard, and always WILL be- despite attempts of the legal system and indignant social quibblers who pretend otherwise. You can't ignore biology, with the psychology and instinct that's hard-wired into every human being on the planet.
Regardless of any notions of equality, WOMEN CONTROL SEX. That's it. Can't deny it. Men throughout history may have wished otherwise, but that's the way it is. I’m not trying to be biased, sexist, argumentative, shocking or offensive, just "straight up" if you’ll excuse the pun.

Women want sex. Men want sex.

It goes both ways-- but Women CONTROL sex.

The "stereotype" is: Men want sex- all the time- anywhere they can get it- with any good looking woman who will LET him. Conversely: Woman want sex too, BUT with commitment/love/marriage/safety/and support. (strings attached), and her stereotype is to fall in LOVE with that ONE ‘special’ guy, before she LETs him have sex.

So you get this confusing world out there with hundreds of men ready for sex at the drop of a hat (or panties), but women are being selective, and want sex just with ONE guy, but the best prospect she can get to commit.

All of a sudden, we are looking at basic laws of supply and demand as they apply to biology, emotion, instinct, and genetics.

At any given moment, there are more Men willing to have sex than Women willing to have sex. Check any bar for 5 minutes. I could say that men want more sex than women, but wait till you’re married.

(...and we won’t get into supply chains and economics of the oldest profession)
This "imbalance of trade" means that she who has the highly valued but limited resource -- controls the GAME.

As I said: women control sex.

So as the gender in control, when a Woman WANTS sex, she can always have sex & she makes the decisions.

This is why guys will go to some ridiculously extreme measures to convince a girl that he is a good prospect. Guys will fight over girls, to show who is the better protector. Guys will buy flashy cars, clothes, and jewels to show their ‘provider potential’. Taking a girl out for dinner is a blatant ploy to say "I can keep you and the kids fed… can we have sex now?" Men will even go so far as to claim dis-interest in ANY other woman in the world, because they have found their ONE and only true love… "I do"… women are in control man.

_____

Look back to March 2005, and the story about 27 year old Pamela Turner having sex with a 13 year old boy…
A few people were "shocked & apauled", but many people thought "No big problem." His friends thought "go Dude!"

Yet if a 25 year old MAN had sex with a 14 year old female student… we’d be outraged and DEMAND justice.
In 2002 Amy Gehring, a 26 year old teacher, had sex with a 16 year old at a party... A more notable case would
be Mary Kay Letourneau who had sex, and two kids, with boy who was twelve when things got started in 1996.
She had a suspended sentence, at first, but did prison time, when her second pregnancy proved that they had been
together again. Now, in 2005 her "boy" friend is 22 years old, and they are geting married. This is still far from a
normal family situation ( see http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5727 ) but evidently this boy's
impression wsa far from being "raped", if he was interested in getting back with Letourneau all this time.

Are there Double standards? Absolutely- but why? In Pamela’s case, it was clearly the woman’s decision to have sex (as the consenting adult). Nothing upset instinct’s apple cart… the woman was in control of any sex… so people consider it less offensive. Meanwhile, the 13 year old Boy in this story was merrily following his instincts, and much more afraid of Mom finding out than anything to do with the sex. (probably)

If you reverse the situation, a grown man having sex with a 13 year old girl DOES upset instinct’s apple cart.

We don’t consider a little girl of 13 in CoNtRoL of the situation, especially with a sex hungry man 25 yrs old.

Her instincts would be going haywire… Alert! Warning! No Commitment here. Possible baby making! I might not be in control of this sex. Who’s decision WAS it? It may have started as "just playing", while her teen-instincts were trying
new elements of having "fun" with men, and learning control. But society says that a decision on sex takes an adult.

And THAT is the basis for our double standard. But exactly WHY and HOW did it turn out this way??

Biology, psychology, and society are completely intertwined in this issue, even before questions of religion or law are taken into consideration. From the primal dawn of time, women have been more selective than men about having sex. A different attitude toward sex is wired into the very DNA of men & women. The reason why is obvious: babies. For women, sex has lifelong significance. It’s Momma’s Baby, and Papa’s Maybe, as the saying goes. She is only going to have a few babies in life, plus it takes a lot of time and energy, so for a woman, "All sex has to count". Men however, are wired a bit differently. There is still a survival instinct built in there, but it plays out a little differently. Guy instincts want to have hot sex as often as possible, with as many different women as possible. By nature, males don’t invest as much time and energy to have babies.

OK women, I know you call that unfair- unfaithful- and against the rules, but that’s the way MEN are wired:
Go for it. Hook up wherever you can. Male traits for survival are to have sex with many women, with the possibility of babies in several places. This makes for LOTS of tension between men and women.

Before really getting in the mood for sex, women try to scope out a guy who will not only be a good genetic father, but also one who will stick around "forever" and be a provider & protector for LIFE. It’s not some idyllic picture of a happy family, it’s a real world survival trait, and forms the core of feminine instinct. By nature's rules, her baby would die, if she can’t take care of it, so women want to find a guy for the long term.

If possible, she would also like to find an attractive guy -but this also fits into child survival. If he’s an attractive "fine specimen of a man" then kids might get his healthy attractive genes. This is all built into our subconscious sense of sexy & good looking. I have even heard women making conversation about a good looking guy across the room say "He’s gorgeous; I bet he’d make nice babies"! That’s Mother Nature talking. Still, the FIRST qualification to get a woman interested in a relationship is to be a good provider, and able to commit. Good looks are WAY down the line guys…
An ugly millionaire who seems faithful CAN find a gorgeous woman willing to get married and have sex - no problem. After all, the way "nature" works; if Mr. Provider can’t help make nice babies, the woman is STILL in control- and she can find another good looking volunteer to help with that part IF necessary. That’s what the pool-man or personal trainer is for.

OK men, I know you call that unfair- unfaithful- we didn’t even get to read HER rules, but that’s how WOMEN are wired.


[ of course, this plays into the delusions of fat, ugly, men anywhere, who still think they can score with a babe ]

Before really getting in the mood for sex, MEN just have to be awake. Guy’s instinct and genetic programming does actually play into survival too. Given a choice, guys keep chasing that beautiful babe, trying for romance.

But what makes a woman seem more attractive to guys? Without our express consent, Mother Nature wired up guy-brains to look for the curvy young 36-26-36 with the optimal body shape for… starting a family. A curved physique with some hips is more likely to survive child birth, which means Mom will still be around to raise the family. And MEN have families too. Wait a minute… I thought men spent all their waking hours trying to have sex with every woman who will let him. Where did I get lost?

Interestingly enough, Men benefit from this family thing just as much as women. You see, both men and women start out as babies, and ALL babies tend to grow up, survive, and thrive better with both parents to take care of them. All of a sudden, instinct says it’s a survival factor for the next generation of both Men and Women if Dad is committed to a wife and family.
Warning ladies: Some shrinkage may occur. Remember that supply and demand thing? When you got married, the odds just evened out. You may find that his eager "always interested" sex drive has tapered off a bit… oh wait, he’s not awake.

HOLD ON, we were talking about Double Standards, and society’s gender bias about "Is it rape, or not"?

While it might be "improper" for a 30 year old woman to have sex with teenage boys, I would maintain that nature and instinct does NOT really consider this to be rape. The legal system is another matter entirely.

I don’t consider Pamela Turner’s actions to be "rape" because (say it with me) Women control sex.

Society seems to agree - whether it's directly stated or not. When Tracie Mokry, a 21 year old art teacher, invited seven students
over to her place and had sex with two of them, the parents were more upset than the students. All sex related charges were dropped,
and she was charged with giving alcohol to minors. Kimberly Merson was doing eight underage boys at a time, and that story just seemed
to fade away... These were certainly illicit, and inapropriate, but as long as the woman is controlling sexual activity, nature/culture doesn't
percieve things to be harmfull or out of balance. When it comes to intercoutrse, there IS NO sexual equality, ether by nature or law.
Perhaps this is even apropriate, and the way things should be, without trying to create an impossible legal equity.

Sex with women in control, everybody’s happy… Sex, but NO woman control = against nature = Rape.

Rape is not just about the having forced sex - Rape is about forcibly ripping the CONTROL of sex away from a woman, and forcing her to do something against the core of her instinct for survival. At that point, the same physical act of intercourse can change from love, beauty, and fulfillment to become defiling hatred, leaving emotional scars that last for years.
[ Can you believe this description is from a guy ?? ]

On the other hand, we’ve already noted that Men are NOT wired with the same instincts as women.

Men are generally "happy to get it when they can", and their instinct says "Go for it- Hook up when you can"

A woman would have a hard time forcing the CONTROL of sex away from a man. He never really had much

control over that decision anyway… OK- so an adult woman offers sex to a minor. It WAS inappropriate, and certainly should not happen between a teacher & student- and is grounds for dismissal. BUT in my opinion, that doesn’t constitute Rape, in the same sense that a Man can rape a woman. When I was a teen, guys used to wish against hope that some pretty woman would let them have sex… even if she was 15 years older.

Granted, an "unfortunate boy" who had sex with his teacher may very well have some negative repercussions. Perhaps his sense of self esteem is put off balance, he might also find it strange to date girls his age for a while. Girls his age might even shun him, as not normal. He might be confused about his owns sexual perspective or desires in the future - or start thinking it’s OK to expect sex from other women, leading to more inappropriate behavior in the future. That might cause him further trouble, as women have to set him straight: No means NO.

Most likely however, the boy is little harmed either emotionally or physically, but just wants this "madia attention" and "police / lawyer thing" to be over.

So what am I saying? Where is the boundary line? What is rape, and what isn’t?

A Man forcing a woman to have sex against her will takes CONTROL of sex from the woman, violating her psyche, as much as her body. It goes against nature and her very survival instinct. That is rape.

A woman offering sex to a man, even a young one does not TAKE away control of sex from the woman.

It’s can be inappropriate, even if both are adults, but it does not violate the psyche or go against nature
in nearly the same way, and I do not think it has the same severity.

A woman forcing a man to have sex against his will would be a VERY unusual thing, but a MAN should have the same right to say NO to sex if he chooses. While it could be possible for a woman to rape a man, that sort of attack would ALSO be more about CONTROL and violating the psyche to go against his nature. Such an attack could indeed be considered rape, but as before, it’s an attack on the spirit, carried out sexually.

A Man forcing another man to have sex against his will. That one still goes against nature, violates the psyche in a traumatic way just as much as the body, and constitutes rape.

An adult MAN having sex with a consenting underage girl is statutory rape. It generally does not have the same trauma to the psyche, since the girl was in control of the sex. She said yes, instead of no but was a minor.

We (society) protect young GIRLS from having sex, because they don't have the emotional strength, self assertiveness, or understanding to make that decision for themselves. (in other words, girls "THINK" they are grown up, and want to have sex
with a hunky older guy, but they AREN'T quite mature enough for that, in adult's view)
OK, that’s it. That’s my opinion, such as you’ve read it. Views are my own, and Standard disclaimers apply.

I hope that these few pages have both given you something to think about, and prompt some good discussion for the AncientClan.

Hey man, that makes sense - supply & demand. But in all seriousness, that could very well be a paper or something or definately a thesis you should probably use in some course of yours, Fleeting. It was an interesting 10 minute read, and what grabbed my attention was that some things, even though I haven't experienced them, have made some sense.

I'm sorry but that was a little long to read, FT. The whole Mary Kay and Vili thing is too messed up. That's not a fairy tale like Entertainment Tonight said...it's crazy. *shudders*

It has the feel of a good educational lecture. :p

I hope this one posts again...

Me too ^_^ ... pretty interesting

*Wanders how long it took to write all this...*
I saw something hillarious about this on Best Week Ever! X'D

Yea, it DID take me about two hours to write it down... The basic thoughts came almost at the same time, so I had to scribbel them on paper for 60 seconds, before I forgot them -- but getting them worded and "fleshed out" so that they made sense to other people took most of the time.

:cool: Thanks for noticing the extra effort.

I would agree that Mary Kay and Vili are never going to be a "normal family" situation...

-- she's completely blown up her "old family" (I'd hate to be one of her first kids)
-- Vili has never really "gotten his act together" (no job, didn't finish school, etc)
-- Vili will have a hard time getting a job for much more than 25K per year
-- she can't exactly go back to being a teacher again (duh)
-- she's still the "dominant personality" in the family (no >man< of the house)
-- In another ten years, when Vili "grows up" some more, is he still going to be happy?

While people pretend that "love conquers all" I see a rough life ahead for this family.


I'm not saying that it CAN'T work, but the odds aren't on favor of smooth sailing.

In fact, I *personally* know of a family where HE is 14 years younger than his wife,
and they seem QUITE happy, and still in love after 8 years of marriage and two kids.
...but they MET after he was already over 24 and pretty grown. It makes a difference.

Hey man, that makes sense - supply & demand. But in all seriousness, that could very well be a paper or something or definately a thesis you should probably use in some course of yours, Fleeting. It was an interesting 10 minute read, and what grabbed my attention was that some things, even though I haven't experienced them, have made some sense.

Glad you liked it... There was definitely some humor/sarcasm added in there,
but most of it was intended to be truthfull. Before I posted it, I realized that
it started to sound like a teacher's class - maybe that's because both of MY
parents were science teachers.

I could relate to it quite well, draw correct meanings from them is what I mean. Sometimes logic and numbers are the explanation for a lot of things, like we see with John Nash's studies. In this case, your explanation - paralleling with the use of Economic's Supply & Demand theory, made a lot of sense. Although, do you speak from past experience / practical experience ?

@FleetingThoughts (http://forums.ancientclan.com/member.php?u=781) - by god man you typed allot and made allot of sense too lol. All I can say is the law is the law. The legal age of sex/consentience is 16 in most states of USA. If people can't wait that long then hell where going to end up like china/Japan and have loads of babies all over the place. But hey its a free contry right?

If women held off on sex then at some time down the road we might actually end up like Germany, paying people if they have full-blooded german babies. It's sad really. Women control sex it's true, but a man can if he wants take what he wants, under penalty of law of course. It is really a very scary notion.