A high school teacher was sentenced today to four years in jail after being convicting of 16 counts of sexual assault on five boys. The sex was even more egregious because the teachers supplied the teens with alcohol and drugs, and apparently held “drug-fueled orgies involving threesomes” and weird sex acts throughout her residence.
This teacher had faced decades in prison. She will serve 4 years, and be eligible for parole in six months.
Her defense was insanity, that the pupils used her.
This argument gets to the point of this post.
Stacy Schuler was only 33 years old and is an attractive and successful teacher. She was having sex with 17-year-old football players. This must be different than a 41-year-old man taking advantage of a 16-year-old girl.
I’m not going to argue that our two genders don’t view sex differently, and this is especially true in young boys and girls. However, our legal system is supposedly be blind — and apply the law equally. We hear often about the discrepancy in how minorities and lower socioeconomic people are judged much more harshly for effectively the same crime.
All students were all around 17 at the time of the crimes.
The Mason High School students, who were all around 17 at the time, testified that Schuler had been drinking at the time of the encounters and was a willing participant who initiated much of the contact.
It is possible that the leniency of the sentence is not to gender perception, because the legal age of consent in Ohio is 16 — but it is still illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student. She was not being charged with statutory rape, but was being charged with 16 counts of sexual battery and 3 supplying minors with alcohol.
A study conducted by CBS showed that “female teachers who sexually harass or abuse students are consistently given significantly lighter punishments or reprimands than males who engage in exactly the same behaviors.” The study has since been removed from the website.
A 43-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old. Does the gender of the two people even matter? Clearly, it does. I will not transcribe the judge’s entire quote, but you have to see it to believe it. The sentence in this case was 5 years probation, no jail time.
It should be perceived as totally sexist to deem girl unable to make this decision, while rationalizing that boys have hit some sort of fantasy lottery — especially when we know that girls mature much faster than boys. This opinion is infantile, childish, elementary. It is the lack of maturity that would make a boy think that screwing their teacher is their lucky day (I have no defense for a male therapist having the same opinion).
On the flip, I would say that it is having such an advanced level of maturity at such a young age for most girls is what ends up traumatizing those who experience the same thing. They are at least able to process the ordeal mentally and understand it.
If anything, boys would need to be protected more.
One Step Further
As if that wasn’t bad enough, there is a perception online that is just offensive. It would never happen with male sex offenders and shows the exact reason why this is a major problem.
First, there are numerous comments online about the Schuler case and how the student that turned her in “ruined it for everyone, especially those on the football team.” One student at the trial felt that her sentence was “harsh“.
Second, there are websites online that talk about the “hottest” female sex offenders online. I post one for you as evidence. It is not the only one. Not even close.
This is not confined to the stupidity of idiots with internet access (read: bloggers). A clinical psychologist was quoted in one piece as saying, “”Generally the male doesn’t feel victimized. A lot of teenage boys would see that as their lucky day.” However, that is not always the case. If are laws state that a minor is a minor — meaning they do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions, then the standard must be applied. We do this is sex, entering into contracts, voting, drinking, and the list go on and on.
To me, this is about women’s rights and the overall perception of women and girls. I often get ridiculed for being anti-women because I was very critical of the 2008 Clinton campaign and because I find the WNBA to be an awful product. My opinions on those have nothing to do with women — and have everything to do with the Clinton Administration in the 1990’s and my being a hardcore sports fan who criticizes everything in sports.
This is a clear sign where girls are treated as needing extra protection or having a second-class mind. Either girls do not have the same mental capacity as a boy at the same age or (if their decision-making ability is the same) we need to protect girls from themselves but, hey, boys will be boys. Either way, it should be offensive.
My answer is not to lower the age of consent or give free reign to all sexual activity like we live in Huxley’s Brave New World. I believe anyone in a position of authority, especially over minors, need to be held to a ridiculously high standard — regardless of our own societal biases. Schuler should be in jail for at least 10 years and never be able to teach again. According to the facts, neither of these things will even be considered. If we were talking about Scott Schuler, it wouldn’t even be a question.