Hot, sexy teenage girls.

[Scotty]

I'm inspired to address society's glorious hypocrisy on this topic, inspired by the imprisonment of a 73 year old Sunday school teacher today. Now by all accounts, this old fellow was in almost every way a perfect neighbor, friend and all around nice guy for many decades, including time as a volunteer firefighter. Until he ran afoul of our society's twisted cultural messages regarding teenage girls.

We all know what society says about teenage girls. It's absolutely brim full of every possible sexual message, inference, insinuation, and sly innuendo. Teenage girls themselves are taught their value is in their hotness and sexuality, and this message has percolated downward to the point thirteen year olds dress in hot pants, thongs, push-up bras and skin tight tops.

I had to look up a documentary I'd caught parts of on the CBC called Sext Up Kids. It's available on their web site. And it delves into the cultural messages teenage girls get, which basically turns them into little porn stars, and sets their self worth by how much boys/men want to have sex with them. So they dress the part, and act the part, and society paints them that way. Oral sex isn't really even sex! Sex between friends is fine! And anal sex is the new oral! If you like a boy, well, send him a naked picture of yourself! That's the culture of young girls today.

But then we have that other side to society's cultural view of young girls. That's that any man over the age of 18 who even thinks, even momentarily, about any girl under 18 in any way that is even casually related to lust or sexual appreciation is a filthy pervert society ought to lock up if not castrate. Such men are dispicable, disgusting, beyond redemption...

??

You know, for most of our history as a species, girls were married off right after puberty. As soon as they could be bred, they were wed. Going back before there even WERE weddings, no young girl of fourteen was left to molder without a mate. That wasn't the way we as a species operated. I'd even go so far as to say it's hard-wired into men that once a female has a certain physical shape they ought to be pursuing her for breeding purposes.

Of course, we as a society have grown considerably more sophisticated over the years. We shelter young people much longer, and we no longer marry off teenage girls nor want grown men pursuing them in any way.

And yet, we as a society turn them into porn stars, sexualizing them in every aspect of our culture. And lo betide any poor fool who actually gets his messages mixed and lets his little head do the thinking for him!

Now I'm not making excuses for this old fool and his groping ways. But the funny thing is that a few decades ago he'd have been given a stern talking to from the police and that would have been that. It would be unlikely he would ever try to grab anyone's butt or chest again. And that was before we started sexualizing young girls! Now, it's no mercy. Off to prison with him, the disgusting pervert!

There's something seriously wigged out about these kind of mixed messages. On the one hand it tells men that teenage girls are the epitome of sexuality and lust and attractiveness, and on the other slaps them into prison the moment they fall for the bait. No mercy, no second chance, no matter how low risk they are or what their previous record was.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Crown+suggests+three+years+Sunday+school+teacher+assaulted/8311993/story.html

[Moonlight Graham]

He sexually touched 4 young teenage girls without their consent (assault), or so is my understanding from the article. Doing that to anyone of any age is a crime. The laws against age and sexual conduct are also clear. As long as they exist people should follow them or be charged/jailed. Whatever anyone wears doesn't excuse his actions.

This is a different point than when you bring up the moral wrongness of being sexually attracted to teens under 18 (or whatever the age of consent is in Canada...16 is it?). The number of views this thread is going to get based on the subject title might legitimate your point haha.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Pliny]

You addressed it but is it hypocritical? Sex is very important. It is so important that women have to have reproductive freedom. It is so important that a 73 year old Sunday School teacher should go to jail and it is so important that young teenage girls must dress up like prostitutes.

If it wasn't important people would have to talk about politics or something.

[Bonam]

Western cultures just generally don't have their heads screwed on straight about sex. It's like the biggest taboo ever. Parents fear to discuss it with their children, showing the naked human form or sexual acts in movies makes said movies appropriate only for adults and yet gore and violence and killing and all kinds of terrible acts are fair game for teens and even young children. And of course we invent arbitrary age numbers and jail people over them. Inside almost every Westerner lurks the subconscious notion that sex is somehow immoral or sinful, that this natural human process must be hidden away, unspoken of, etc.Someday Western societies will get more mature about this subject, but not very soon. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Bonam

[Scotty]

Western cultures just generally don't have their heads screwed on straight about sex. It's like the biggest taboo ever. Parents fear to discuss it with their children, showing the naked human form or sexual acts in movies makes said movies appropriate only for adults and yet gore and violence and killing and all kinds of terrible acts are fair game for teens and even young children. And of course we invent arbitrary age numbers and jail people over them. Inside almost every Westerner lurks the subconscious notion that sex is somehow immoral or sinful, that this natural human process must be hidden away, unspoken of, etc.Someday Western societies will get more mature about this subject, but not very soon. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

The irony is that once upon a time people lived in one room dwellings. Everyone knew what everyone looked like naked. Parents had sex in those houses, with ten kids around. Hell, they still do it in third world tribal villages. And you know, the kids don't grow up to be traumatized and sexually perverted. They take it in stride as normal human behaviour. Meanwhile, in the West, kids can be traumatized for life because some old man grabs their boob.

[Scotty]

He sexually touched 4 young teenage girls without their consent (assault), or so is my understanding from the article. Doing that to anyone of any age is a crime. The laws against age and sexual conduct are also clear. As long as they exist people should follow them or be charged/jailed. Whatever anyone wears doesn't excuse his actions.

I'm not suggesting he didn't do wrong. I'm saying that in the first place, putting a first-time offender into prison for 18 months is silly, especially given his age and the lack of violence involved and lack of threat he poses. Society reacts with horror to his relatively unharmful behavior because of its insanely overprotective instincts towards the sexuality of a group which that same society hypersexualizes.

[Michael Hardner]

I think MG highlighted the problem with the post. Society may indeed not have consistent ideas about sexuality, but why bring this case into it ?

[The_Squid]

Old perverts should be locked up when they assault children.

This has nothing to do with social hang ups over sex.

[Scotty]

I think MG highlighted the problem with the post. Society may indeed not have consistent ideas about sexuality, but why bring this case into it ?

It's that two faced aspect which struck my mind. On the one hand society hypersexualizes teenage girls. It pumps out the message in every cultural medium that teenage girls are sexually desirable, see themselves as sexually desirable, and should be seen as sexually desirable. Then on the other hand, it comes down with a ton of bricks on any poor fool who accepts the message and acts awry. Again, I don't condone groping girls. But while I don't blame the girls I do blame society for luring this guy into his sexual interest in them. And I absolutely don't think society should be slamming a 73 year old guy into prison for this, given his lack of previous record, the lack of violence involved, and the fact he's, let's face it, a skinny old man with poor health.

[Michael Hardner]

They're two separate issues. Do you really want to exonerate him based on society making women into sex objects ? Where does that lead us ? Is there to be no responsibility for one's actions ??

[cybercoma]

Victim blaming is disgusting. We don't do it for any other crimes because it's ridiculous. Why the hell we do it for women being sexually assaulted, harasses, molested, or raped is beyond me,

Edited June 1, 2013 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

Obviously burqas are the answer.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

They're two separate issues. Do you really want to exonerate him based on society making women into sex objects ? Where does that lead us ? Is there to be no responsibility for one's actions ??

Not for cannibalism on a bus...it would seem. Why not extend such feel-good empathy to sex offenders ?

[Scotty]

They're two separate issues. Do you really want to exonerate him based on society making women into sex objects ? Where does that lead us ? Is there to be no responsibility for one's actions ??

Not talking about exonerating him. I'm saying that just as society hypersexualizes young girls it, at the same time, overdramatizes the importance of sex into this toweringly important act, and so because this guy stepped over the line society is crucifying him. If he'd held up a bank, he wouldn't get eighteen months. In all likelihood if he shot someone he wouldn't get that long in jail, not as a first offense at his age. He fondled a couple of teenage girls. That's way rude, and deserving of condemnation, but on a first offense it makes no sense to put him in prison.

[Scotty]

Victim blaming is disgusting. We don't do it for any other crimes because it's ridiculous. Why the hell we do it for women being sexually assaulted, harasses, molested, or raped is beyond me,

Who is blaming the victims? Are you not capable of reading?

[Scotty]

Obviously burqas are the answer.

-k

Not talking about what they're wearing. Don't know what they were wearing. I'm talking about the way society and media have built up the image of teenage girls into this sexualized archtype and then castrates any man over eighteen who becomes aroused by them.

[Michael Hardner]

Not talking about exonerating him. I'm saying that just as society hypersexualizes young girls it, at the same time, overdramatizes the importance of sex into this toweringly important act, and so because this guy stepped over the line society is crucifying him. If he'd held up a bank, he wouldn't get eighteen months. In all likelihood if he shot someone he wouldn't get that long in jail, not as a first offense at his age. He fondled a couple of teenage girls. That's way rude, and deserving of condemnation, but on a first offense it makes no sense to put him in prison.

Ok, but you still want to take some responsibility away from him for his acts. Society is going to be more and more sexual, which is probably a reason for us to be ever more strict about crossing lines as he has.

[Canuckistani]

Neither the age of the victims or perp is really the issue - he's sexually assaulting other people. If he's doing it because of senility, ie can't help it, put him in a proper facility, otherwise let him bear the consequences.

The sentence does seem harsh tho in comparison to an Inuit woman who was just given one year for setting a shed on fire that contained her, now dead, husband. Manslaughter seems like a more serious crime than grabbing somebody's tits to me.

[Guest American Woman]

.The sentence does seem harsh tho in comparison to an Inuit woman who was just given one year for setting a shed on fire that contained her, now dead, husband. Manslaughter seems like a more serious crime than grabbing somebody's tits to me.

Actually, she wasn't found to have set the shed on fire, but to have caused her husband's death. It's still not known what sparked the fire: it could have been a lit candle, the wood stove, or MacFarlane's cigarette. Also, according to the article, her husband was abusive and she suffered from PTSD, which, according to the judge, were mitigating factors in the sentence.

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674iqaluit_woman_to_serve_10_months_jail_for_husbands_shack-fire_death/

Regarding the incident in the OP, I found this comment, emphasis mine, odd:

LaFramboise’s “advanced age and deteriorating health,” along with his aboriginal status and lack of any previous criminal record should be considered as mitigating factors in his sentence, Addelman argued.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Crown+suggests+three+years+Sunday+school+teacher+assaulted+four+teens/8311993/story.html#ixzz2V0GPt4oh

Why should his aboriginal status be a factor in sentencing? - I don't get that.

[ReeferMadness]

It's that two faced aspect which struck my mind. On the one hand society hypersexualizes teenage girls. It pumps out the message in every cultural medium that teenage girls are sexually desirable, see themselves as sexually desirable, and should be seen as sexually desirable. Then on the other hand, it comes down with a ton of bricks on any poor fool who accepts the message and acts awry. Again, I don't condone groping girls. But while I don't blame the girls I do blame society for luring this guy into his sexual interest in them. And I absolutely don't think society should be slamming a 73 year old guy into prison for this, given his lack of previous record, the lack of violence involved, and the fact he's, let's face it, a skinny old man with poor health.

I agree there is some hypocrisy in the way that we use sex as way of marketing damned near everything and then demonize anyone who is guilty of even minor sex offenses. However, that in no way excuses this guy's behaviour.

If this guy finds himself attracted to early pubescent girls, that's one thing. But in society, we're all expected to control our impulses. If he can't he needs help. Unfortunately, he is wholly unlikely to get it in our criminal punishment institution (let's not call it a justice system which it is not).

[BC_chick]

I was a teenager once, I dressed way over the top and behaved in ways I wouldn't now. But it was to attract TEENAGE boys, NOT dirty old men.

I have no idea why any man in his right mind (ahem) would think a teenage girl's sexual beahviour should have any bearing on a man's behaviour. A woman of any age, really.

You think the sentence was too harsh, fine. Let's discuss it, there are plenty of threads about sentences being too harsh or too light.

Let's debate facts, similar cases, and other pertinent information instead of bringing the young women's sexuality into things - starting with one sensationalized heading and continuing all through the thread. Disclaimer, "not that it makes it right' of course but oh, what can we expect otherwise?!?

Meh, you just went full Imam there Scotty. Never go full Imam.

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?” the sheik said in his sermon. “The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38561/#y7IsKIFLD8Iy41XO.99

Edited June 2, 2013 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

The thread is about a man who molested young girls and his sentence - yet the title is "Hot, sexy teenage girls??" I don't understand why some thread titles are changed by admin "for clarity" while others, which have absolutely no clarity as to the subject matter, are left as-is.

The idea that the girls were too "hot and sexy" for the poor man to control himself is sexist and Dark Ages mentality at best. Furthermore, if "society" does this, why isn't that indicated in the title of the thread? I was expecting "Girls Gone Wild," not a thread about an old man molesting young girls - and how the sentence is just too harsh.

Young girls don't appreciate getting grabbed, to put it mildly - and they shouldn't have to dress in a prairie dress or hijab to prevent it. Girls should be able to dress in whatever manner they choose - same as boys. No one criticizes or condemns boys for dressing to attract girls.

[kimmy]

LaFramboises advanced age and deteriorating health, along with his aboriginal status and lack of any previous criminal record should be considered as mitigating factors in his sentence, Addelman argued.

Why should his aboriginal status be a factor in sentencing? - I don't get that.

That is peculiar indeed.

I am speculating here, but I believe it may stem from currently-popular theories regarding alternative sentencing for aboriginals in Canada.

In the not-too-distant past there was great concern about why Canada's prisons are overflowing with aboriginal inmates, and an intensive study concluded that the way to reduce the number of aboriginals in Canadian prisons would be to send less aboriginals to prison. (This was the result of millions of dollars of research and years of study, as you can imagine.)

Since crime can't go unpunished, alternatives to incarceration were required for aboriginals convicted of crimes. One of the things they came up with was "sentencing circles". Basically, these are gatherings where the criminal, the victims, and the community get together and hug it out. When it was reported in the press that aboriginal offenders could be punished with group therapy, rather than prison, the idea was ridiculed by many Canadians.

"No no," the experts replied, "you don't understand native culture! For a native person, being reproached by their community is more punishing than a prison sentence could ever be! Rest assured, this is serious business."

And while I doubt most Canadians are convinced, Canada's legal community has to pretend they take this idea seriously so that they can defend alternative sentencing practices for aboriginal offenders.

So, that might be why this person's "aboriginal status" is an issue. I am just speculating, as I said, but the idea that sentencing native people is different from sentencing other people seems to have currency within the legal community.

-k

[kimmy]

Who is blaming the victims? Are you not capable of reading?

You're not blaming the victims specifically. But you're arguing that society is making teenage girls seem too sexy, and that this is a mitigating factor that should earn this person a "slap on the wrist" sentence. And that's really just a generalized version of the "she was asking for it" defense.

Not talking about what they're wearing. Don't know what they were wearing. I'm talking about the way society and media have built up the image of teenage girls into this sexualized archtype and then castrates any man over eighteen who becomes aroused by them.

I'm wondering if you could be more specific about how teenage girls have become a "sexualized archetype". Mainstream movies and TV are pretty cautious about portraying underage girls in sexual ways. Mainstream erotica, whether on the internet or traditional media, doesn't use underage models... if you're looking for porn involving underage people, you have to go underground to get it. "Sexting" may be a thing, but I don't see any reason to think that girls are sending provocative pictures to 74 year old Sunday school teachers, so I don't see how that would be a factor in this guy's motives.

What, specifically, are you referring to when you talk about teen girls being "hypersexualized" in our society? If we define that, then we can discuss this idea further.

Not talking about exonerating him. I'm saying that just as society hypersexualizes young girls it, at the same time, overdramatizes the importance of sex into this toweringly important act, and so because this guy stepped over the line society is crucifying him.

Society makes money into this toweringly important thing, and glamorizes wealth and possessions, and yet we take robbery so seriously.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

That is peculiar indeed.

I am speculating here, but I believe it may stem from currently-popular theories regarding alternative sentencing for aboriginals in Canada.

In the not-too-distant past there was great concern about why Canada's prisons are overflowing with aboriginal inmates, and an intensive study concluded that the way to reduce the number of aboriginals in Canadian prisons would be to send less aboriginals to prison. (This was the result of millions of dollars of research and years of study, as you can imagine.)

[...]

So, that might be why this person's "aboriginal status" is an issue. I am just speculating, as I said, but the idea that sentencing native people is different from sentencing other people seems to have currency within the legal community.

"Alternate sentencing for aboriginals?" That helps shed some light on the comment, but all I can say is ... wow.