Maybe it is a double standard, but I have a hard time calling 14 year old boys who chose to go to a hotel room/car to have sex with an older woman "victims" (as the article refers to them).

People who drive Hummers don't understand consequences....

Hummers, Mormons, and fucking middleschoolers--the American way!

I think they ought to give her a damned medal.

My son is 12. Some of his friends are 13. I feel differently.

Puberty comes with perils, not least of which is a stiff dick that just won't stop. If humans could resist sex, we wouldn't exist.

Yeah, Dan, but how would they feel about it?

Definitely not a thing that should be allowed, but is it "assault?"

Then again, as I think on it, maybe there are circumstances in which it should be allowed. I mean, when I was 14, I would have been thrilled and not harmed in the least to have had sex with an adult woman.

Of course, there is the danger that adults will take advantage of kids, but 14 year olds were regularly married not that long ago. I guess it all depends on the circumstances.

I wonder if her dentist husband was drilling her?

I wonder if her dentist husband was drilling her? Seems she had to go elsewhere for fillings.

Deja vu.

Deja vu

If she was buying them visa gift cards and video game consoles and pellet guns, she was definitely manipulating them. The fact that they were willing to go along with it, and too stupid to realize they were being manipulated, doesn't excuse her actions.

@6: We don't let 13 year olds drive cars, vote or sign contracts because they don't have appropriate capacity to understand consequences or repercussions. My 14 year old cousin would love to have sex with a thousand women, drink vodka and drive a Lexus. He doesn't get to for a reason.

I'm another one of those people having a hard time marking these kids as 'victims'. The guys are underage, but they consented to having sex with this woman, keeping nude pictures of her, and accepting gifts. It's the parents that feel violated, not these boys.

As an aside, how come these cougars that prey on teenage boys are always super hot?

wonder if the dentist-husband's coffers were a motivator for filing charges. 'course, if it pays out, the kids are guilty of double-dipping.

I'm pretty sure those boys got more than one hummer out of this if they got blowjobs and pics too. Some nicknames stick with you for life.

Guilt is an aphrodisiac. A sick, perverted one, but an aphrodisiac nevertheless. That's why so many Christian cults stress the "sex-is-sin" aspect, and forget about the whole wearing blends thing. Who wants to feel guilty about not working & afflicting yourself on the tenth day of the seventh month?

Canadian Nurse, I still want to have sex with a thousand women, drink vodka and drive a Lexus, and I'm more than 40 years older than he is. Some things you don't outgrow.

Does it work?

It depends ...

Does she swallow?

Cause Hummers sure do.

@20 - drive the Lexus, then drink vodka, before you have sex with 1000 women. Doing it the other way leads to unfortunate side effects.

5280, but you (hopefully) understand the concepts of child support, STDs, hangovers, DUI's and debt. He definitely doesn't get why he should restrain any of those impulses, except that he'll get grounded.

Mais oui, je comprend. All too well, I'm afraid.

They're children under the age of sixteen, that's a fact. I can't imagine being sexually attracted to anyone under the age of sixteen, and I'm 46. Personally, I draw the line around 23 - before that, they look way too much like children. And I still prefer men of at least 28. (It should be noted I don't pursue these guys - they find me.)

However, back to this woman who seriously needs therapy. Some of her partners are pretty close to her own kids' ages, you gotta wonder if she's sized up her kids' friends, too. Bet that thought is creeping out her friends and neighbors.

Boys that age don't even WASH voluntarily. The whole idea is gross.

I'll never get the attraction to adolescents, of either gender. They're too bizarre and hopped up on hormones at that age - I cannot see being sexually attracted to them. Hell, it was an uphill battle when I WAS one of them.

It was only 10 years ago that I was 13 and I remember it well. I can say that I would have been ecstatic to be having sex with an attractive adult woman, plus getting free video games. What was she manipulating them into that they didn't want to do anyway?

It can certainly be argued that they didn't understand the full consequences of what they were doing, but this can be said throughout one's entire life in all pursuits. I don't necessarily argue for changing the law here, but I think it's silly to pretend as if 13-year-old boys and 13-year-old girls feel the same about sex. They don't. If the liberal's rule of wrongdoing is based on harm, I think we must consider that the "harm" done to a 13-year-old boy by giving him blowjobs and video games is not like the harm done to a 13-year-old girl by telling her you'll always love her, taking advantage of her sexually, and then leaving her.

Wait, so just because they are boys it's not statutory rape? Just because they are boys the age of consent doesn't apply? If these were 13 year old girls who had consensual sex with "the Hummer Dad" you people would be pissed. I am seriously grossed out by the double standard. CHILDREN cannot give consent, no matter what gender they are.

@18: Considering they were 13-16, I'd go with ephebophilia, actually. Not saying that makes it right in the eyes of the law, but to me at least there is a big difference between sex with adolescents and sex with honest to god children.

@15,

Tell that to the victims of male pedophiles who were groomed for their abuse. This woman's actions sound no different.

And there are documented cases of ugly women preying on adolescent boys. Those women don't make headlines because there's no titillation factor.

@26,

Even older teenagers are pretty awkward and ugly. Being hit by nostalgia recently, I leafed through my old high school yearbooks. The hotties from back then were relatively gross looking. They're much hotter now at 30 than they were at 16.

The big question of statutory rape is whether this is about meaningful consent or meaningful harm.

When I was a teenager, I knew 14 & 15 year old girls who wanted sex and were not that interested in emotional commitment. Their diminished capacity to understand consequences made them ripe for pregnancies and STDs, as asking for condoms always seemed too difficult. I still know women in their 20s who do the same stupid things, yet I do feel much more inclined to let adults make their own mistakes while I want to protect children from the same mistakes.

@30 As Livingston has stated, the situation for a 14-year-old girl is a very far cry from what a 14-year-old boy will feel about an older person of the opposite sex making sexual advances at them. We can only really know what the boys feel about this situation from their own comments, which aren't provided.

From my own experience with guys that age, and from the information in the article... My mind isn't changed. I think these boys were taking advantage of the situation. You can try to convince me otherwise, but it'd have to be a strong argument.

You know, it's on adults to be the responsible ones, and I certainly appreciate Dan's (and others') perspectives as parents, BUT...

...speaking only for myself, when I was 14 the only thing she (or frankly, any moderately attractive older woman) would have had to do to get me to have sex with her would be to offer. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been somewhat damaging to me at the time (I almost certainly would have gotten attached and then been devastated when it eventually ended) but I have a hard time agreeing that it would have been "assault", and certainly not any form of rape.

Is that a double standard? Yep. This doesn't mean it isn't true.

I am another one who is skeptical about calling these boys "victims". I know several people (both male and female) who lost their virginity around age 13. For some of them, it was *with* someone else who was the same age and it was by mutual consent. They were old enough to consent to sex with someone of their same age. They were old enough to consent to sex in general. Most parents will surely think that's too young, but they've probably forgotten what it's like to be that age. I know this woman's actions were illegal, and I'm not saying what she did was right or okay. But I still suspect the boys think themselves lucky rather than victimized.

15, and everyone in agreement with 15:

Are you really that fucking stupid? Really-I'm serious. Or are you just trying to be an annoying devil's advocate? What if she gave the kids herpes, syphilis, hepatitis or HIV? Do you think 13, 14 and 15 year olds should be allowed to drive? Buy alcohol? Do you think 13, 14 and 15 year old JVs should be tried as adults too?

Pull your heads out of your asses, go back to school and try to find some common fucking sense, you morons.

That the boys themselves may not consider themselves to be victims, and may in fact even characterize themselves as "lucky," doesn't change the fact that this is wrong. Many a 13-year-old girl is flattered by the sexual attention of an adult man, and even if she was willing, or even thrilled, to have sex with him, he would be legally, morally, and socially condemned as a rapist and child molester.
This is a double standard, and wrong. It's not about what the boys want; it's about what is legal and ethical behavior on the part of the perpetrator--in this case, an adult woman.
There are a host of things we don't let 13-years-olds do because they aren't old enough to make good decisions yet.

You know how folks say--it isn't the fall that gets you it's the landing, well this is sort of like that. The hummers probably didn't hurt these boys much but not having them any more and the shit storm they are now in sure is going to sting for awhile. I agree that this woman did a bad thing-- she selfishly indulged in flaunting her sexual power over what were basically defenseless kids. I can imagine her getting a big charge out of blowing their minds with her prowess but there sure is no victory in turning on a teenage boy. She has plundered a bunch of campsites and left the campfire smoldering all for a few fleeting thrills--not cool.

You know, you can get married at 13 in Quebec.

To you it's too young.

But when Quebec was founded, this was NORMAL. VERY NORMAL. INCREDIBLY AVERAGE.

It used to be normal and incredibly average to beat your wife, own slaves, not educate your daughter . . .
The "it used to be normal" argument doesn't hold water.

We know better now.

And I agree with #37: what possible good can it do these boys in the long run to have been the tools of a woman's pathetic and obsessive need to assert her power by seducing them?

anybody can be a victim in a relationship. most boys would love to have a chance with a hot lady like this and i doubt it would have done me any harm. except for the social stigma and crazy media.

@4 - parents aren't always right, though they may want to be protective. though Dan usually is in my book.

i love this fucking cuntry!!! farah wannabe sucking kids dicks in a truck! 67 counts and she'll walk. this is one sad girl. i feel a twinge o' sadness for her tykes, start the meds now kiddies!

@ 35--You know what? You're right. Someone should make sure these boys understand how victimized they have been, especially if they are young and naive enough to have actually enjoyed the sex with an attractive older woman. Let's make sure that they have been appropriately damaged by the experience.

Look, I don't think anyone here is giving the the woman a pass. (I'm certainly not, anyway.) I just think it's dumb to lump in the creepy, irresponsible, and unethical with the coercive and violent.

To take it back to the analogy to alcohol that you mentioned: there is a world of difference between an adult supplying booze to kids that want it, and an adult plying a kid with booze either forcibly or without their knowledge. The latter is criminally violent, but the former is merely tremendously irresponsible. Neither are ok, but they simply aren't the same thing. And I think (at least based on my limited reading of the case) that the sex in question here is more like the first case. Should the facts prove otherwise, I'll be right there with you in calling this sexual assault.

I'm going to be pretty non-committal about these boys being "victims" or not. I don't think it's right, but I agree that boys view sex differently.

What I will say however, is this woman has done tremendous harm to the social development of these boys. They are in a period of their lives when they should be learning how to interact with social peers. They are quiet likely to have both a hard time developing relationships with girls their age, and a true lack of understanding why.

@35, indeed, I think it was Churchill who said, "he who says "fuck" the most must surely be right."

I'd like to answer you, but I don't see any substantive argument in your post to discuss.

I don't think anybody here is arguing that statutory rape laws should not apply to women, just that we're being coyly oblivious if we act like this is the same thing as an adult man seducing a young girl. I know guys who had experiences like this when they were teenagers, and they universally think it was great. I'm positive that not everybody in a similar situation feels the same way, but it's the case often in life that we chance pain to live a fuller life. I'm just not convinced that it makes sense to prevent teenage boys from having great experiences because there's a chance for heartbreak or disease.

Again, my point is not to say that these laws should be totally thrown out, just that we need to start looking at them more realistically and honestly.

I subscribe - as Dan and most progressives do - to the idea that the only immoral act is that which causes harm. I think you're really out of touch if you think most teenage boys feel harmed by video games and blowjobs.

@39 - "what possible good can it do these boys in the long run to have been the tools of a woman's pathetic and obsessive need to assert her power by seducing them?"

Teenage boys really do not see the world in these terms. They would be, by and large, very unlikely to view this from that perspective at all. The "possible good" would be the free video games and blowjobs, i.e. pretty much the 2 greatest things imaginable to a teenage boy's mind.

Boys mature MUCH more slowly than girls. By that logic, shouldn't a 14-year-old boy be deemed even more of a victim than a 14-year-old girl because he's much less self-aware and therefore less able to consent?

@ #40 (Livingston): I agree that the boys themselves might not see anything but good in this situation, but I don't think that they're in the position to see it accurately.

Maybe I'm being irrational (and betraying my status as a mother), but I can't help but consider the woman's possible motive in plying young, young boys with video games and rides in a "cool" car, and sex. My mind just goes to "why would she want to do that?" and "What is in it for her?" Maybe these boys are hotness incarnate, but I doubt it.

From the story as reported, she is a many-time offender (or seductress, if you prefer), and I have to think that she's somehow using these boys for some fairly unhealthy gratification/validation of her own.

That the boys are enjoying themselves is kind of beside the point, in a way.
I don't know how many 13 year-old boys you're around, but I have kids in that age range, and they look like children, not young men, not even "teenagers." I'm 45, so not too far from the woman's age, and I can't imagine what would drive me to repeatedly initiate sex with kids and buy them expensive toys, unless it was some sort of desperate attempt to prove my youth and attractiveness to myself in a really weird way.

She's using them.
That is the bottom line, for me. You may argue that they're not being hurt, that they are having the time of their lives, and that in 10 years or so, they'll recall this episode fondly, and I grant that people's motivations are questionable in many situations. But she's not demonstrating a great deal of sound judgment or good decision-making, or perhaps even mental health (is she trying to compete with her children for their peers' sexual attention?), and so in that sense, she is using the boys as unwitting pawns.

If it is always about informed consent, I'd argue that
1) these boys were not fully and accurately informed as to her motives (and you're going to say that they wouldn't care: a blow job from an attractive woman would trump anything else to a thirteen-year-old) which leads me to
2) at thirteen, children lack the capacity to really consent as equals. They're not equals. She is an adult who has taken advantage of children.

About the boys probably enjoying themselves, don't many female victims of statutory rape also enjoy themselves? Isn't one of the insidious things that child-loving pedophiles do (as opposed to the ones who are physically cruel when they rape) to start young and 'train' the kids to believe there is nothing wrong with what is happening? Just as for grown women who have a physical reflex and become aroused during rape, the main harm in cases where there is no physical violence is the shame the victims feel after the fact because they had no control. This can cause even more shame in cases where the victims were aroused because liking something that was also very traumatic is a total mind-fuck.

@35:

"15, and everyone in agreement with 15: Are you really that fucking stupid?"

I probably am, but I don't think the others are.

"Really-I'm serious."

Oooohhhh .... serious about your poorly argued, rude and anonymous online post about a suburban mom blowing teenage boys? How sad.

"Or are you just trying to be an annoying devil's advocate?"

Hey, at least we would need to try in order to be annoying.

"What if she gave the kids herpes, syphilis, hepatitis or HIV?"

Isn't this really an argument against all unprotected sex between people of any age? Statistically, her driving these kids was probably much more dangerous than having sex with them. Stop using "safety" as a smokescreen for your irrational feelings about sex.

"Do you think 13, 14 and 15 year olds should be allowed to drive?"

No. Unlike a 13 year old boy getting a blowjob, a 13 year old boy driving could harm me.

"Buy alcohol?"

No, but they should be allowed to taste it in moderation. Cultures that allow this have a lower occurrence of alcoholism than those who do not.

"Do you think 13, 14 and 15 year old JVs should be tried as adults too?"

Only if they kill or rape someone I care about. This is a funny question for you to pose, as those most in favor of trying kids as adults tend to be the ones who also want to punish adults like this woman most harshly- so you have strange bedfellows here.

"Pull your heads out of your asses"

That's my head in there? And all this time I thought my butt plug had lice.

"go back to school and try to find some common fucking sense"

Can you please elaborate on this supposed connection between schooling and common sense?

"you morons."

Strong finish. Now we have no choice but to agree with you.

Also, if she gets pregnant by one of her male rape victims and decides to keep it, there's a good chance he'd be legally obligated to pay child support. That's a real consequence that almost everyone would agree is detrimental, no matter how many video games and BJ's he got..

People keep on commenting on how in the past people used to get married around 13 or so. As has been mentioned, this does not necessarily make the actions of hummer mom moral- many other things that we consider immoral were normal in the past. Furthermore, stating that someone is willing and enjoys sex does not mean that the sex will not have detrimental effects in the future. This aside however, I wanted to respond to that claim. It was common for children in noble families to be married at young ages for political purposes, but these marriages were generally not consummated until a later time (often young brides would be raised apart from their future spouse until they were in their mid to late teens). Additionally, among the common people, the age of marriage was much higher. According to the wikipedia article on the subject, the average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age. Women would have been younger than their male counterparts, but marrying too young (the early teenage years) was historically avoided because pregnancy at this age causes developmental problems. Anyway- just keep it in mind that what we think is historical often isn't, it's a story that has been manipulated throughout time for political and ideological reasons for centuries.

@mel: I wonder. Is there a precedent for anything like that?

@nocutename: I think speculation about this woman's motives or psyche is beside the point, actually. Terms like "unhealthy gratification" sound like all the people who object to sex that progressives are in favor of. It's the same language that has been used for years by people who are against gay sex, interracial sex, anal sex, oral sex, whatever.

It's all about harm done. It isn't the government's (or yours or mine) place to legislate things we think are weird or icky. I think people pooing in each other's mouths or my grandparents having sex is weird and icky. But I think they should be allowed to keep doing it. It's not for us to keep people from doing things because they may have what we'd consider unhealthy motivations. Have you ever flirted with someone with whom you had no plans to have sex? Was that because you were trying to validate your attractiveness? Was that inherently wrong?

This started up two years ago?

And what else happened two years ago?

(Gets out Glenn Beck licensed chalk board.)

Summer, 2008.

What else was going on in California the summer of 2008?

Yes, that's right. Gay marriages were legal in California.

My friends, it's all clearer now, isn't it?

Well I'm glad some other people responded to 35 before I had to. Let me tell you, man, your use of the words 'fucking' and 'stupid' totally convinced me of why my logic was incorrect.

As to some of the other posters, I can understand the issue of STIs and pregnancy, but those are problems that a kid could encounter from any sexual partner. The fact that the woman is 'using' the kids is beyond the point - the kids, from my viewpoint, are using her, as well. The question is whether these kids feel victimized. Going back to my previous post, there's no indication from the kids' mouths or actions that they were; the parents reported them after finding nudity on a phone.
There's the point that these kids might suffer from problems they might not know they're suffering from, but uh... C'mon. Unless there's some kind of study proving that there's a link between a teenage boy and a much older woman having a relationship causing psychological problems, it's a stretch. Personal observation from friends, and commenters here, tells me that there isn't.

Oh, and 47, that comparison is totally off. The scenario you're describing is when a person is raped, and feels guilt over the fact that they are enjoying part of the act. Also, when a pedophile grooms a victim, it's because they're a close friend or family member with easy access to the victim. These boys were consenting, and I don't believe this woman was scaring them into silence. She drove up, offered them a ride, then offered them some sex.

But uh, hey, again, I'm just going on the news article. If more details come out contrary to what I'm typing, I will absolutely change my tune about what I think was really going on.

So...

To everyone saying "This shouldn't be ILLEGAL because there's no HARM-- boys and girls are different!"

...You're really advocating writing into LAW that underage sex with a girl is illegal but underage sex with a boy is legal because...boys and girls are different? Really? So no more "equal in the eyes of the law", all so that men (and women) who have sex with 14 year old girls go to jail, but men (and women) who have sex with 14 year old boys don't?

This is actually your position?

Or perhaps it's that we should write into law different ages of consent for boys and girls? Boys are legally able to chose at 14, but girls are not until 18.

Honestly, how do you figure this would work?

The thought of 14-yr old kids nowadays having sex with this woman is deeply disturbing.

On the other hand, the thought of *me* at 14 having sex with this woman is amazing. Freshman year of High School! No girl would even look at me that year. If I could have had a women like her.... well, I'd be a better man today for having a more satisfied adolescence.

Color me ambivalent.

whoops. should be "sex with an underage" not "underage sex with."

doh.

@55 Who said anything about making it legal? We're just talking about whether there's any damage to the teenagers.

@55. The only one suggesting rewriting the laws to be different for boys vs girls is YOU. Strawman much?

@59 Tell me where I've stated that it should be legal for a 14-year-old boy to have sex with a 42-year-old woman.

@60 I am not in any way apologizing for the woman who had sex with these boys. But I'm not going to sit here and agree that they were manipulated or tricked into what she proposed. She put her ass on the line by breaking the law, and she is going to be punished, but these kids were not harmed.

Again, the issue is "Were these boys harmed?" Not, "Should it be legal to have sex with teenagers?" or "Are there potential problems that can happen from this scenario?"

Children and adolescents have sexual feelings, which they explore with other children and adolescents. However, when an adult has sex with a child or an adolescent, even if the child or adolescent finds the experience sexual gratifying, they are forcing adult sexual roles on a victim who is fundamentally unable to understand them. Children cannot understand the risks of disease, or the very real possibility of parenthood, or the less concrete but no less damaging emotional dependency that can result from an adult sexual relationship. Any of those boys could have contracted aids, become a father at 14, or fallen in love with a sick, predatory woman who could never have a healthy, loving relationship with him. This ignorance and vulnerability is often what attracts predators to adolescent victims.

@56 That's a good point. I have a 14 1/2 year old son, and he looks like a baby to me (I'm 46), but when I was 14 1/2, I had a boyfriend who was the same age, and, well...let's just say I had a completely different perspective then.

To my middle-aged brain, 14 year olds are still children, but, as you say, I remember what 14 year old boys talked about/wanted desperately when I was that age, and how they regularly fantasized about women who were in their 30s (Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue circa 1979 with Cheryl Tiegs springs to mind...)

Anyway, I think this woman was way out of line, but I agree it may be a grey area where the boys are concerned.

The story points out the woman was known as "Hummer Mom" because she gave rides to A LOT of neighborhood kids. And bought a lot of them presents, like the BB guns she bought for a bunch of 10 YEAR OLDS, whom she subsequently allowed to shoot at bicyclists from the window of her fabulous bitchin' car. But surely she was only doing this because she was "the coolest mom ever", and not because she had a sick compulsion for the gratitude and adoration of young children.

I can guarantee this woman has had sex with kids other, and possibly younger, than the "ever-so-lucky" middle schoolers she was caught with. The fact she was giving out toys and video games to kids from a Hummer instead of the traditional air-brushed, windowless "Rape Van" doesn't make her any less of an abuser or groomer of future victims.

Also, even if the boys were consenting, this lady basically turned them into tiny rent-boys, paying them for their sexual favors. The red-blooded he-men around here may think that's a double bonus, but at the very least, it's gonna be a hard lesson when those boys find out most women don't follow up every blow job with a trip to Toys R' Us and the ice cream parlour.

Can you get pregnant from a blowjob? Coz if not, it seems to me the pregnancy issue is a red herring here.

Silvio Levy

I'm interested: Would all the people saying 'its not abuse' still think that if it was a adult male having consensual sex with 13yr old boys?

Just as a point of interest, when I was a 13 year old girl (and even younger) I was desperately keen to have sex with an adult male (not boys my own age, they weren't remotely attractive). I even remember thinking how unfair it was that society was imposing on me these ideas that I was 'underage' and couldn't handle it. If an attractive man had offered me sex I would have jumped at it (video games or not). Do people really not realise that young girls have the same sex drives as young boys?

Looking back now, the main reason I don't regret not having sex at that age is that any adult man who had been interested in me then would have been deeply weird. Girls are capable of enjoying sex at that age, but we declare they can't legally to protect them from the potentially messy consequences (STDs, Parenthood, Broken Heart...). I don't see how all those things don't apply to boys as well. We still call it abuse when underage girls are consenting.

I sometimes think the age of consent for both sexes should be lowered, but its a tricky thing because the age range that people sexually mature at is so large. So in order to protect the late developers you end up making sex illegal for others years after they are ready.

Out of curiosity, the folks who think it's OK for a grown-ass woman to have sex with 13 year old boys because they were willing... what would you think if it was a grown-ass man having sex with willing 13 year old boys? Is that OK? Or does this only apply to hetero statutory rape?

The harm I see is that the young boys may go on to harm young girls. I was 15 when I had sex. I was totally into it, but the asshole had a 13 year old girlfriend and left me after about 4 encounters. Condoms - yes. He was 17. It set the stage for me never to trust a man. I had sex with other boys... but didn't even know how to orgasm until I was at least 20, and that was only when I learned to do it myself. It wasn't until my late 20s that I learned how to orgasm with a man. Girls need sex education so they don't have to seek out boys for something they don't even know they actually want - which is the big "O". I think that teenages of the age of about 16 should be taught by a 17 year old girl who's been trained on how women should be treated. Ultimately, a guy isn't usually satisfied unless the girl has an orgasm anyway. Sex ed! Sex ed! Nothing's wrong with masturbation - at least you can't get pregnant or an STD.

The argument keeps being made that these kids could get AIDS or get someone pregnant because they are too immature to know to use condoms.

My response is this: 14-year-olds have sex. I did when I was 14. (As an aside, 10 years later I'm still with the same girl to whom I lost my virginity and vice versa, in a stable, loving relationship. Any assertion that I'm a macho womanizing he-man could not be farther from reality.) We always used 2 forms of protection, but obviously it's true that many teenagers are stupider than that.

Now, with it in mind that 14-year-olds are going to have sex, in which case do you think it's more likely that protection will be used:

a) a 14-year-old with another 14-year-old
b) a 14-year-old with a 40-year-old

I think b) is much more likely. If we agree that 14-year-olds are stupid and reckless, then 2 of them together must surely be more stupid and reckless than only 1. A good counter to this which I will make for you is that having sex with a teenager is stupid and reckless (at least because of the law, if nothing else), therefore any adult who would do it is also stupid and reckless. Yes, excellent counter-argument, self, but I still think it's likely that an adult in the picture would make things safer, not less safe.

To those who disagree with me, I'll point out once again that I don't recommend that anyone have sex with underage people, I wouldn't do it myself, I don't think it should be legal to do so, etc. I just think we are in need of a more honest discussion on this topic. Some good points have been made on both sides here, and I would say that there's less disagreement here than the angry among you seem to be finding. And @60, certainly no one here is saying that it's cool for adult men to have sex with teenage girls. The whole point of this is to question whether things are universally the same for teenage boys' feelings as they are teenage girls.

I think the people here crying "boys are not girls, they should be subject to different rules" are completely missing the point."
The point is: "children are not adults."
Yes, 14, 13 and 12 year old boys (and girls) do have sex.
They should be having sex with people close to their own age, not with fully-grown adults.
I would say it's the age difference that is the point here, not the sex of the children involved.

@71: No, children are not adults, but children are gendered to behave in sexualized ways by their parents, relatives, neighbours, and as their same-aged friends come into their own, their friends. It's not a complicit act so much as an unconscious one. If we look into our past interactions with others, we are all guilty as charged. I would probably go so far as to stress that when a toddler is doused in pink or blue, the sexualization of that kid is already well underway through the quiet, almost passive instruction of gendered dialects like "girl" and "boy".

The act of gendering those kids to play the game of "be a boy" or "be a girl" means far too frequently to subscribe to analogous, popular culture expectations of "little men" and "little women" on their way to the big time. So whenever all that conditioning is cashed in — that is, when a kid behaves in an adult way per the way they have been told their sex should act as an adult — there's suddenly a social/parental/adult meltdown of imparting all that unconscious behaviour that told the kids that this is what they would become one day. The kids are probably not clear on when that day arrives, so it could be age 17, 21, or 13.

Livingston, Cory and others made their points so beautifully that I have nothing to add! Just my own experience:

I'm female. I lost my virginity at 16, with a guy who was 26 (illegal in my country!!). Actually, he was too young for my taste -- I was always exclusively attracted to adult men -- but I was extremely horny by then and didn't have much to choose from. Now, if anyone tries to persuade me that I was damaged by the experience I'll laugh my ass off! Are you kidding?? It was fucking great! In the long term: I'm *very* glad that I did it with this sweet, mature and thoughtful man than with some young idiot my own age. People who will say that I couldn't really consent or didn't understand the consequences of my actions are lunatics! I could and I had. (And yes, an adult is much likelier to use protection than an adolescent).

Now, I'm NOT claiming that the law should be changed (although in some places the age of consent is ridiculously high, and indeed should be lowered). Neither do I claim that what "Hummer mom" did was okay. All I am saying is that I seriously doubt that the kids were damaged by her actions... although I have little doubt that now, with concentrated efforts from society, they will be persuaded otherwise...

@65:

"she had a sick compulsion for the gratitude and adoration of young children."

Yes, it looks that way.

"I can guarantee this woman has had sex with kids other, and possibly younger, than the 'ever-so-lucky' middle schoolers she was caught with."

Nice trick. Putting "guarantee" and "possibly" in the same sentence. You can't guarantee anything here, but it is a good guess that she had sex with other boys. It is a bad guess that she had sex with younger boys, though. Adults with a taste for the newly-pubescent rarely have a taste for the pre-pubescent.

"The fact she was giving out toys and video games to kids from a Hummer instead of the traditional air-brushed, windowless 'Rape Van' doesn't make her any less of an abuser or groomer of future victims."

Tell that to someone who was raped in a windowless "rape van." While we're making guesses here, I'm going to guess those people are more traumatized than the boys in this case. Just because you are equally grossed out by these two different scenarios does not mean that the victims involved were actually equally victimized.

"Also, even if the boys were consenting, this lady basically turned them into tiny rent-boys, paying them for their sexual favors."

Or, she was just giving them gifts in addition to giving them sex. Do you really think these boys would have turned down the blow jobs if they were not also offered video games?

"The red-blooded he-men around here may think that's a double bonus"

This isn't just about be a red-blooded he-man; it's about having been an adolescent boy, having known many adolescent boys growing up, and using this experience to draw the conclusion that a 13 year old boy is old enough to consent to getting a blowjob from an adult and is unlikely to be traumatized by the experience.

"at the very least, it's gonna be a hard lesson when those boys find out most women don't follow up every blow job with a trip to Toys R' Us and the ice cream parlour."

The hard lesson will be that blowjobs usually stop after marriage. I think they'll survive the whole "not getting ice cream and toys after head" situation.

@46:

"I agree that the boys themselves might not see anything but good in this situation, but I don't think that they're in the position to see it accurately."

It is true that children can be OK with something that is not actually in their best interests, and that adult society has to be wary of this. I think most people here agree with this principle, but just don't think it applies here.

"Maybe I'm being irrational"

We're all being irrational. That's what people do.

"I can't help but consider the woman's possible motive in plying young, young boys with video games and rides in a "cool" car, and sex. My mind just goes to 'why would she want to do that?'"

I think most of us agree that she is a bit off, but I don't think that's nearly as important an issue as how much, if at all, were these boys actually harmed?

"I have to think that she's somehow using these boys for some fairly unhealthy gratification/validation of her own."

Probably.

"That the boys are enjoying themselves is kind of beside the point, in a way ... at thirteen, children lack the capacity to really consent as equals. They're not equals"

No, it is not beside the point. Kids don't just cross some threshold at the age of 18 where they stop being utterly incapable of having valid feelings and making decisions and suddenly become capable. Growing up is a gradual process. A 13 year old boy is more capable of giving consent than a 9 year old. Yes, 13 year old boys do enjoy things that are bad for them, but this does not necessarily mean that we should jail people for doing things to 13 year old boys that the boys actually enjoyed simply because we wish the boys did not enjoy it.

"I can't imagine what would drive me to repeatedly initiate sex with kids and buy them expensive toys, unless it was some sort of desperate attempt to prove my youth and attractiveness to myself in a really weird way."

Yeah, she's messed up. Feel free to be grossed out by this woman; just don't get on the bandwagon to send her to jail. The harm done here is more in the imagination of people like you than in the psyche of these boys.

"She's using them ... these boys were not fully and accurately informed as to her motives."

When boys and men get blowjobs, how often do they "fully and accurately inform" the person blowing them of their motives? Assuming you have given blowjobs, did you "fully and accurately inform" the man getting blown of your own motives? What kind of standard is this?

I guess what it comes down to is inequality in the eyes of the law (you remember that issue, right? Judge Vaughn Walker just ruled on it here in California). What is against the law for one group of people, say, those adults who have sex with pubescent girls, should be against the law for the corresponding group (those adults--male or female, btw--who have sex with pubescent boys.

It's the adult who should be coming under scrutiny, not the kids.

For the record, I think that 18 is an unnecessarily high age of consent, and I agree that kids mature on a continuum. Still, no matter how precocious an individual child is, there is a world of difference and maturity between a 13 year-old and a 16, or even15 year-old. But people have been giving examples of 16 year-old girls having sex with 26 year-old men, or two 14 year-olds, or even a 14 year-old boy and a 2o-something year-old woman. These were boys, 13 year-old boys, which by any sampling, are still extremely immature, and the woman was in her 40s--a far cry from the example that #73 (Ola) gave.

If it would be illegal for a man to have had sex with 13 year-old boys or girls, it should be illegal for a woman to have sex with 13 year-old boys or girls.

lighten up folks, these people are not worth the time and or energy of your concern. the boys are future frat fucks who won't, don't and will be morally unable to care for you or what you think. shooting at cyclists from a moving vehicle? among the other shit. and kid fucking mom says it all by her actions. these fucks are drunk with consumption, status, stupidity and arrogance. god bless moterfucking america! and they're all probably here illegaly, did anyone check birth certificates? i love white people, they are a fucking roit! orale pues motherfuckers, let the drinking begin!!!

@77: Men and women are not equal in the eyes of the law. Consider 2 drunk people having sex. If the girl decides later that she regrets it, she can charge him with rape and he is likely to be convicted. If he decides he regrets it, his buddies will laugh at him, and that's it. So a drunk woman is incapable of giving consent, while a drunk man is in full control and legally culpable for his actions.

Consider the countless cases of drug-addicted, abusive mothers getting custody of their children instead of capable fathers, because judges assume that women are better parents. Consider the gender inequality in reproductive rights afforded to men.

So if lawmakers and society at large do not object to these and other laws that discriminate based on gender, why should we turn to equality as if it's the most important thing here? I am in favor of equality, so if it became the case that genders really were treated equally under the law in America, then you would have an excellent point and this case would be closed. But as long as everyone else seems to agree that, in fact, genders are not created equal and do not deserve the same rights, it can't be argued here that this equality must be upheld over any other consideration.

35, livinsgton, kungfujew and the rest of the douches:

adolescent brains do not have the ability to process and rationalize information, emotions, etc... the same way an adult brain does:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/

I would have previously wasted more time trying to explain this to you if it weren't already common sense. You fucking morons.

You sound like a bunch of closeted NAMBLA members.

I guess if that's the standard of discourse around here maybe I was foolish in thinking Dan's audience would be a smart bunch with which to debate.

Livingston, a smart debater should also realize that one whackadoodle, no matter how vocal, does not define the standard of discourse for the entire group.

You know, there's a reason we protect children from things like sex, marriage, signing contracts, etc. The idea is that they don't have the capability yet to understand long-term consequences. Yes, many individuals are capable of understanding those things at a young age, but on the whole, a 14-year-old doesn't really grasp the idea of having to pay child support for the next 18 years, or what their life will be like if they become HIV-positive.

Sex between individuals close in age (non-coercive sex, that is), is generally pretty harmless even when the individuals are extremely young. However, sex with a perceived authority figure at a young age can lead to all kinds of weird unforeseen emotional complications - lifelong paraphilias, inability to relate meaningfully to peers, intimacy issues, etc. The physical act of sex is generally less traumatic between a young boy and an adult woman than between an adult man and a young girl, but that does not mean the potential for emotional trauma is not just as severe.

I remember being 14 very well. I had a mad crush on my English teacher - he was young, cute, fun. I'd have done anything he wanted. Luckily for me, the man had better sense than that. I can only imagine how bizarrely that would have affected my relationships with my peer group to have a relationship with an adult man when I was barely in my teens. And that's without even considering the issue of publicity. Teenagers are embarrassed by everything. I can just imagine being outed as a Lolita. Yes, the societal response to a boy with an adult woman is going to be different, but that doesn't mean it's not still just as damaging to the child's self-image and interpersonal skills.

On the whole, I'm against it.

True.

I definitely expect and welcome well-formed arguments against mine, realizing that what I'm proposing, while less radical than it may seem to those with poor reading comprehension, is unpopular and offensive to some.

@80:

"35, livinsgton, kungfujew and the rest of the douches: adolescent brains do not have the ability to process and rationalize information, emotions, etc... the same way an adult brain does: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/"

I am not going to deny being a douche. That's really in the eye of the beholder, and you are entitled to your opinion that I am a douche. However, I think it's fair to point out that neither I nor anyone else here has stated that an adolescent brain has "the ability to process and rationalize information, emotions, etc... the same way an adult brain does." If I may presume to speak for some of the other alleged douches, what we are saying is more along the lines of: while adolescent brains process emotion and information in less advanced ways than adult brains, it is not necessarily an absolute truth that an adolescent is incapable of consenting to sex- especially if that adolescent is a boy who happily ejaculates during the act and then comes back for more at a later date.

Less capacity is not the same thing as no capacity.

"I would have previously wasted more time trying to explain this to you if it weren't already common sense."

It is remarkable how often people regard their opinions as "common sense." A classic cop-out to avoid paying attention to the arguments of others. "If you don't agree with me, you must lack common sense- therefore, it is a waste of time for me to explain things to you, therefore, I never need explain anything to anyone who does not agree with me ... and around in a circle you go.

"You fucking morons."

Please. Stop showing off your superior reasoning skills. We get it already! You're smart and we're dumb. I mean, you're calling us morons, so you win. Automatically. Check mate.

"You sound like a bunch of closeted NAMBLA members."

Hmmm. And just how would you know what a closeted nambla member sounds like?

Oops, my "True" was in response to Fifty-Two-Eighty.

@83: Sex between teenagers generally harmless? Is it really on me to point out that teenagers are just as - perhaps more - fertile as adults, and just as susceptible to STIs? Are you not aware of teen pregnancy? I don't get how these are not concerns with inter-teenage sex, but major deals when an adult is involved.

I think not only would an adult be much more likely to insist on protection than another teenager, but also if an adult has a baby with a teen, at least there's on adult around to take care of the kid instead of the usual case of 2 teenagers taking care of a kid.

For sure, there are psychological issues. I just don't think we can apply the same psychological analysis to young boys as we do to young girls.

When I was 16, I would've jumped at the opportunity to have sex with an attractive older man/woman. At 13 or 14? Not so much. It probably would take some manipulation. Then again, I'm a woman, so this isn't even relevant.

Livingston is so full of shit I don't even know where to start. Holy crap.

Please, start. I'd like to hear what you think.

new book out called "the trauma myth" in which the author, susan clancy, argues that it is not so much the abuse itself that traumatizes victims of child sexual abuse, but the reaction of society and the well-meaning healing professionals who shackle the victims with guilt, secrecy and shame.
i haven't read it all the way through, but it's interesting so far.

@88 Disagree. Livingston comes across as measured and thoughtful, he just happens to be saying something that you don't agree with. That doesn't make him full of shit. For all the women who are offended by what he's saying, remind yourselves that, unlike Livingston, you've never been a 14 year old boy.

As far as I'm concerned, @15 hit the nail on the head:

It's the parents that feel violated, not these boys.

Isn't this true? The parents, and society in general, sees something wrong with this. The boys almost definitely don't -- I believe every guy on this thread is telling the truth. But even most of them are able to admit that something seems a little *off* with this woman. She's what, 42? And picking up kids as young as 10 in her truck, buying them video games and BB guns, letting them shoot at cyclists, and having sex with them, all without their parents' consent? Is this the kind of person we, as a society, want hanging out with our kids? No, it isn't. I think almost all of us can agree on that. People shouldn't be doing this stuff with our kids behind our backs. A person who does that is showing remarkably bad judgement. She's a terrible role model; she's not acting like an adult. And if she's that dumb, what else will she do? She's not good for kids.

I think this is the crux of it. The sex stuff has been terribly overblown; I'd say all of it comes under the more important heading of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". But everyone is freaking out about the sex part, because that's what we do with girls. And it's got to be equal, right? Girls can get pregnant, girls can be raped. Boys can get a girl/woman pregnant, boys can get diseases, and boys can be emotionally abused (and financially abused once they are men). It doesn't happen every time, for either of them; mostly you just enjoy some illicit thrills, but the potential is there. I think Livingston is overstating the differences between the genders; they are different, but there is more difference among them than between them. Mostly, it's that we hold girls' sexuality to be sacrosanct, and now that we're trying to be equal, we have to do the same for boys. But that view isn't a perfect fit for either.

The bottom line is, a social taboo has been crossed, and that taboo exists for a reason. No conscientious parent would welcome this woman into their neighbourhood. She's proven that she can't be trusted, and she's willing to corrupt your kids (corrupt: to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., esp. by bribery). The kids weren't injured, but they were corrupted. That's the nature of the harm that was done.

@89 All that needs to be said is right here:

"Consider 2 drunk people having sex. If the girl decides later that she regrets it, she can charge him with rape and he is likely to be convicted."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

I don't know where you live, but for example in the state in which I live, a person is deemed to have been raped if sex took place, and the "victim" was in a stupor due to voluntarily ingested alcohol. This stupor makes them unable to give consent, even if they do, much like teenagers are unable to give legal consent, even if they do. This holds even if the "offender" is drunk as well. So let's see your counter-reality, please.

As another example, in England rape is when "(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis," which is to say that in the eyes of the law, rape can only be committed by a man. I don't live in England, and you may say it's irrelevant, but I think it's worth pointing out that in Western society it's commonly agreed that laws don't need to apply to everyone equally. Once again, I think it would be great if they did. But we can either agree that laws should really be applied universally, or not. You can't apply laws discriminately, then claim that everyone must be treated equally under the law.

@92:

OK, good points, but do you think this woman should go to jail (assuming the charges are true)?

@88, 93:

What if the language were tweaked to say: "more likely to be convicted than if the roles were reversed"? This would be accurate and bolster Livingston's position but still acknowledge that many accused rapists are acquitted or not charged at all; a fact which I'm guessing is connected to your opinion that he is full of shit.

@96:

"Equality" does not require ignoring reality. Boys and girls are different partly because they are treated differently, but it is also true that part of why they are treated differently is that they are different to begin with. Most of the people (female and male) I know who subscribed to the "gender is a social construct" theory back in their 20s started whistling a different tune once they had kids. This is not concrete evidence that adolescent boys won't suffer from having sex with adult women, nor does it make what this particular woman did OK, but it does add legitimacy the the idea that it is foolish to treat boys and girls in the exact same way.

Largely as a result of the differences between females and males, it is very rare for a grown woman to have sex with adolescent boys, so there is very little evidence regarding how this sex effects the boys. What the law does, and what many in this discussion are doing, is assuming that these boys will be effected just as if they belonged to a group for which there have been plenty of victims to study, such as:
1) pre-pubescent boys molested by an adult; or
2) pre or post-pubescent girls molested by an adult; or
3) post-pubescent boys forced by an adult to have non-consensual sex

It's fair play on your part to suggest that my opinion here is based on some sort of fantasy I have of myself as an adolescent getting action from an older woman. This was a fantasy of mine an an adolescent and likely remains a common fantasy for adolescent boys. But ultimately, when we discuss the mindset of these boys, aren't we all using our imagination to some degree? Those who think this woman should go to jail are imagining these boys as being psychologically damaged by the experience- and other than this imagination, there's not a whole lot of evidence of harm or future harm.

I'm not "imagining the boys as being psychologically damaged;" I'm saying that what this woman did was illegal and whether the boys liked it or not, since she committed crimes, she should be charged and punished for them, the same as if she were a man and her victims girls.

I agree that there are social and cultural scripts at play here. Our society sees the sexual "innocence" of girls as sacred and to be "protected" up to the point of marriage (think of the brouhaha when "appropriate" role models for pubescent girls like Britney Spears a decade ago or Miley Cyrus now start revealing themselves to be sexual beings)
and bemoans its "exploitation," but celebrates boys getting "experience." This colors our response to all kinds of social and legal issues.

There have been some thoughtful postings on this slog, notably #92 (Irena), but some people are falling back on gender differences to justify inequality in the eyes of the law--a very slippery slope, from my viewpoint.

Lastly, I want to try a little thought experiment: to all of the men who say that they would have liked to have had sex as a thirteen-year-old with a forty-two-year-old woman, I get it. But how would you feel/react if it was your thirteen-year-old son who had been the object of this woman's sexual attentions? Would you slap him a high five and tell him, 'way to go!?' I doubt it.

And before you all start accusing me of being unprogressive in my attitudes and thinking that parents should have the right to control their adolescents' sexual lives, I say that it is not a one-size-fits-all issue. Two fifteen-year-olds in love (or lust) is very different from an adult using a child.

@95: Yes, I think she should go to jail, at the very least for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but also for sexual interference. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I know nothing about California state law. I can tell you that the Canadian criminal code doesn't use the term rape, but the umbrella term "sexual assault", to avoid the narrow interpretation that Livingston points out @94. It bugs me that this article uses the term "rape" in the headline. But to be honest, I think even "sexual assault" is too specific here. There was no assault; the sex was consensual. I think "sexual interference" would be more accurate -- and, I think it could apply to similar situations between girls and older men. We generally call it statutory rape, and I'm not sure why that term's not being used here. Again, I prefer "sexual interference"; this was not a rape, or a "sexual assault".

I'm glad this discussion is taking place, because I also think we as a society have been ignoring the difference between the kinds of acts that older women and older men commit against kids. This, maybe, gets to the heart of what Livingston and others have been talking about, but views it from the other side: men are way more likely to use violence against girls than women are against boys. Men (in these situations; this is not a blanket condemnation) tend to want to get pleasure for themselves, regardless of whether the girl is comfortable or in pain; whereas women are doing things like giving blow jobs. I'm just trying to imagine a case like this where it was an older guy picking up girls to give them oral sex. In my teenage dreams, I tell you. Or where a woman was pegging teenage boys when they weren't ready for it, regardless of their pleasure or pain. There are basic biological differences that have a bearing on the crimes committed. So when a girl is interfered with, there is, historically I'd say, more potential for harm. Then add all the other sexist/gendered preconceptions, and even if she enjoys it, she's been "raped" or "assaulted". We have to be more careful with those terms. They can be ridiculously inaccurate (especially as far as these boys go), and they're an affront to kids (boys and girls) who suffer violence at the hands of adults.

All that said, I don't want to underplay my belief that "sexual interference" should be treated as a serious crime. What this woman did was wrong, wrong, wrong.

@99: I'm also wondering how many of these commenters are parents. The contrast between these responses and Dan's response is interesting. (PS: I am not a parent, but I've worked with kids)