[Lunatique]

I remember back in 97', when I first saw this case in the news, I wrote an editorial in my ongoing comic series "Enchanted" expressing sympathy and support for the star-crossed lovers. My editorial cause an attorney from the state of Kentucky to contact my publisher and demand I retract the editorial and apologize. Of course, I maintained my disposition, and they boycotted my book.

Now, years later, I still feel the same way. In fact, I have even more sympathy for Mary now than ever, especially after reading the 27 points she wrote while in solitary confinement: http://www.marykayletourneau.com/27points.html

Who's side are you on? Mary's or our puritan government?

O.J. Simpson plays golf all day for murdering someone that he has vowed to love and protect, while Mary Kay Letournear is chained to the wall in solitary confinement, for loving someone and giving birth to their children. Our society and legal system is sick.

If you are are on her side, be vocal about it. If we don't stand up for her, no one will.

[jr]

arg, i dont' know why i'm replying to this....
she's in prison for having sex with a 12 year old. if it were reversed and it was a 30+ year old man having that sort of relations with a 12 year old girl, he'd be in prison watching his back. the fact that she was in a position of responsiblity and took advantage of a 13 year old who's hormones were acting up makes me sick. this woman is mentally ill. there's no defending this. i think the majority of us remember what 13 was like, we were children then, children who needed to be protected, by adults. it makes me so angry when people miss something so obvious.
or maybe she could have done what elvis did and waited till he was legal.

[Socar MYLES]

I had a teacher like that in high school--if I recall correctly, I first had his class when I was 11...fortunately, things never went that far. Can't say I exactly appreciated the 'attention', though. And I can't say I approve of her actions, either, for more reasons than I can count. Of course, there's the obvious and fundamental hideousness of an adult preying on a child in that manner. There's also the fact that she was his teacher. Even in universities, where the students are almost all above the age of consent, the teachers are expected to keep their hands off the students, if for no other reason than it would be difficult to grade someone's work objectively while you're sleeping with them.

Whether Western society's 'puritan' stance is right or wrong, it does exist, and the teacher in question isn't going to be the only one who gets judged by it. It would be very naive to assume the kid's going to have an easy time of it, either. She did not stop to consider that before she slept with him. As an adult in a position of authority, it was her duty and her responsibility to look out for his best interests, and she didn't.

There's a big difference between love and lust. I am very fond of a lot of people, but I certainly don't f--- them. If she had really loved him as deeply as she claims to love him, then why on earth couldn't she have waited a few years? I don't know about love, but I'm pretty sure real love is as strong when expressed platonically as it is in a sexual relationship.

To be brutally honest, I think the whole situation is pathetic, ugly, and indescribably sordid. I think they both behaved irresponsibly, acting on their hormones. And I also think most of the blame is hers, since she was a) an adult who should have foreseen the consequences of her actions, and b) his teacher.

Sorry if I sound annoyed...I wouldn't ordinarily say anything in a thread that's likely to explode in flames...but this sort of thing fills me with disgust. I didn't put up with years of my English teacher's clumsy, drooling (and embarrassing) advances just to smile and say that sort of thing is all right.

It is most emphatically not fine. I won't back down on that.

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Socar MYLES ]

[Lunatique]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Men and women cannot be treated the same when it comes to a case like this. This woman is not a predator. She GAVE BIRTH TWICE to his children, and they maintain to this day that it's true love. HE was the aggresor in the relationship, and he was bigger, stronger, and taller than she was. She did not "take advantage" of him. In fact, he forced himself on her the first time.

Male adult/minor girl is a whole different situation than female adult/minor boy. They should be treated differently.

The boy, at NO time, ever said he was a victim, and even the boy's mother says the same thing. In fact, they believe they have been torn apart by a society that just doesn't understand that age difference does not prevent two people from falling in love. They have 2 children together, and they are in love. This is NOT a case of a perverted adult preying on a minor.

Here are some links that are worth reading regarding this case:

http://www.marykayletourneau.com/olsen_11_about_mary.html

http://www.marykayletourneau.com/RCWs.html

http://www.marykayletourneau.com/lifted/Blilie_marries.html

http://personal.riverusers.com/~thegrendel/mkl.html

http://www.mightycompanions.org/suzanne/page11.html

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Socar MYLES]

Let's not mince words, Lunatique. He 'forced himself on her the first time'? So you're saying he raped her. But they're really in love.

Sorry...that's just too big a contradiction for me. I will admit I haven't followed this story very closely, mostly because of my disgust with it...but the more I hear the more it just seems ugly.

[Pat]

Mmm.... what about her OTHER children? They're the real victims here. I noticed the site conveniently overlooks this issue. What about her previous husband? She took vows, presumably before God, made a life-long commitment to him and had a clearly defined responsibility to her children --all which she chose to foresake. A mother who abandons her children for another relationship is disgusting on a very primal level. Our laws be damned, this is a Biological Imperative, without which the our very species would fail.

Love doesn't appear to be the issue here at all. The point of contention that decides this for me is her character. She can't keep her word to her husband, her children, her peers or the judge. True love isn't just a giddy, feel-good affair... it's also tough choices, responsibility and lost opportunities. May Kay Letourneau doesn't "love" anything but a good time. It's obvious she doesn't understand the true nature of commitment --so those who would hold her up as a beacon to honor the romantic notion of "love at all costs" are operating from a fundamentally weak position.

-Pat

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Pat ]

[Gandalf-]

Hmm..

Am I alone in thinking that "Lunatique" has somewhat of an unhealthy obsession with this?

Not to offend (although that seems inevitable), but the fact that you can spout 10 or so links regarding a story that is almost 5 years old is rather disturbing to me.

I don't really understand why you'd throw this out in the open for discussion here at Sijun. I mean, if you're really into this story still (which you obviously are), why would you bring it to conversation in an art forum? By your very first post it seems pretty apparent to me that you are desperately seeking people who share your strange obsession:

"If you are on her side, be vocal about it. If we don't stand up for her, no one will."

Did you expect to find a little pocket of society here at Sijun that fits that mould? Isn't that sorta naive? I mean, as you can see by the majority of replies, most people really just don't care.

[Pat]

Muzman,

I'm not talking about animals. I'm talking about people. Civilized people, no less. Human children, until a certain age, are completely incapable of caring for themselves and solely reliant on their parents for their survival. The powerful bond between a child and its mother is critical to the survival of the species. Yes there are extreme situations where this does not hold up, but none of which apply to Mary Kay Latourneau.

I don't believe her betrayal towards her family warrants her going to jail as you have incorrectly inferred. I do believe her ignoring the will of the State and utter disregard for society's laws does, though.

The sticking point of this controversy is the letter of the law vs the moral boundries we place on the imperative of love. We've got quite a few intertangling laws here, one of which is the "Biological Imperative" I refered to. In most instances, the mores of society were established to using biological criteria. For instance: "She's your sister -don't mate with her." or "Eating People is bad." There's some leeway here, but behaviors which are counter-productive to the propegation of the species end up as taboo. Folks are free to judge this controversy using whichever criteria they hold dear --but I certainly don't think the biological argument is off base. I chose to view this controversy in terms of her character. I think her actions, not her words, are far more telling as to the state of her mind.

As an aside, I also don't agree with your assertion that humans got to the top of the food chain by "...following their every whim." That sounds like anarchy to me and certainly conflicts with the myriad of moral, spiritual, and biological laws that complicate this matter. Without the prerequisite rules each culture has, society could not function.

-Pat

[Lunatique]

Socar/Pat,

She was severely abused by her husband. The judge that was judging her case even said to him, "If this case wasn't about Mary, I'd throw you in jail right now for what you did to her."

The boy showed her understanding, compassion, love, and companionship during a time when her husband repeatedly mistreated her. She's only human. She needed someone at that point, and none of it was sexually motivated.

He "forced himself on her" in the sense that he was very aggressive and dominant. I pointed that out to show that she was not a predator.

Corn Pops- I don't have an "obsession" with this case. I happen to have been in the little boy's shoes when I was a minor, so I support them, feel sympathy for them, and care about what happens to them. This is RANDOM MUSINGS, the section where you can talk about ANYTHING. There are 3 other sections for discussing art only.

When I was 17, I had a girl friend that was 26, and we were together for over a year. Everything about the relationship was no different than the relationships I've had since. Not once was the age EVER an issue. When we were together, not ONCE was the age issue ever discussed. In fact, she said she felt like she was dating someone her own age, and that was the only time she mentioned anything about our age.

If someone were to have reported our relationship, she would've been in jail. Knowing that our very normal relationship would have gotten her in jail makes me VERY ANGRY. At the time, neither of us even thought about our relationship as "illegal" or "taboo." To us, we were just two people in love.

I'm NOT saying that Mary is a hero of some kind. She did betray her family, and she did break the law. my problem with this case is the way she is punished:

Our system decided to make her "an example," and punished her FAR MORE severely than they would've punished a man convicted of raping a minor. She's serving DOUBLE the time in solitary confinement when men guilty of cases much worse are getting off rather easily. What did she do that's so horrible that our system is making her into this horrible witch? She's not some predatory violent rapist, yet she's sentenced to more than double the time she deserves.

WHY?

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Muzman]

I shouldn't get into this, I don't know enough about it. I heard about it, thought it was funny and that's about it.
(I don't think much of the OJ comparison though. After an investigation like that they'd have let Manson go too.) Generally I think Americans like sticking people in jail for the slightest thing, where a more considered, thoughtful approach would serve all better.
but this deserves some inquiry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pat:
Mmm.... what about her OTHER children? They're the real victims here. I noticed the site conveniently overlooks this issue. What about her previous husband? She took vows, presumably before God, made a life-long commitment to him and had a clearly defined responsibility to her children --all which she chose to foresake.

---

Is all of this bad enough to be sent to jail for?

quote:

---

A mother who abandons her children for another relationship is disgusting on a very primal level. Our laws be damned, this is a Biological Imperative, without which the our very species would fail.

---

Respectfully, this is totally false. In nature mothers routinely abandon their children, particularly when threatened. I can't remember who said it, I think Dawkins, but it was stated as Nature always sides with the mother in whatever she does. The mother is the most precious thing there is. Humans are unique in their rampant and relatively recent cultural mores that do the opposite. Humans following their every whim is what got us to the top of the food chain in the first place.
I doubt that has any bearing on this moral and cultural discussion, but framing a biological imperative like that is way off base.

[wayfinder]

i suspected something along that line already. i'd still say: 17/26 is quite a bit different from 12/whatever.

there can be no (argh, my english leaves me) apologizing or supporting the actions of mrs letourneau. so what, the boy wanted it? OF COURSE!! it's a 12 year old boy, for christ's sake. she MUST NOT take advantage of this, regardless of her personal situation. she gave in to her weakness and commited a crime in that she had sex with a child! you aren't arguing that point, are you? you are trying to find excuses, some kind of argument to make an exception in this case. tell you what: few things are black and white in this world - where do you stop? the next case is right around the corner! will you hurry from court to court, dashing into every room and scolding the judges who stand in the way of true love? Love does not stand above the law!

I think you have sufficiently driven home the point that your are a passionate, romantic, true love guy. what are you trying to do? are you searching for a soulmate on this board? maybe an older woman? your post seems like a sorry excuse to lay open part of YOUR life.

[Lunatique]

You know what? Nevermind. I regret bringing this topic up in the first place. I only wanted to see if it was possible to get some more supporters for her case. The more support she gets, the more likely that a small chance of having her sentence reduced is possible.

You have all made it very clear that there's an invisible line that a person should not cross in this forum. I crossed that line, thinking that I could say something like this in a forum I hang out regularly.

My mistake for expressing my feeling and my thoughts on this subject.

wayfinder- I'm not searching for a soulmate or an older woman on this board. I feel no need to lay open part of my life. I only brought it up to explain why I support them. It makes me sad to know that's what you think of me.

This is very sobering. I definitely learned something. I will never get personal here ever again.

[Vesuvius]

you'll never get personal here again? WHY, because we don't agree with you on this? sheesh, don't bring something up if you can't deal with people with other views.

[Lunatique]

No, not because no one agreed with me.

It's because not one single person understood what I was actually supporting.

I'll say it loud and clear once again, for the last time:

She does not deserve the unusually harsh punishment given to her, and for that, I feel there's an injustice. Violent male rapists usually receive HALF the sentence she was given, and it make NO sense whatsoever. She was neither violent or a rapist, yet our system is treating her worse than one.

Do you understand now?

There. That's what I'm angry about.

[Muzman]

and now we do the OT dance

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pat:
[QB]Muzman,
I'm not talking about animals. I'm talking about people. Civilized people, no less.

---

Then you aren't talking about any sort of biological imperative. But I think this is largely sematics.

quote:

---

Human children, until a certain age, are completely incapable of caring for themselves and solely reliant on their parents for their survival. The powerful bond between a child and its mother is critical to the survival of the species. Yes there are extreme situations where this does not hold up, but none of which apply to Mary Kay Latourneau.
...
The sticking point of this controversy is the letter of the law vs the moral boundries we place on the imperative of love. We've got quite a few intertangling laws here, one of which is the "Biological Imperative" I refered to. In most instances, the mores of society were established to using biological criteria. For instance: "She's your sister -don't mate with her." or "Eating People is bad."

---

This is the sticking point, where environmental considerations become cultural ones. The implication here is that society prohibits what is considered bad for the species, apparently on the grounds that if such a practice is too widespread it would harm the species as a whole. There's nothing much biological about that, drawing as it does on three very cultural ideas; society, preservation of the species, a categorical imperative style "If everyone did it..." logic. This is where it's likely to be a semantic argument. I wouldn't call such considerations biological (the actions of individuals are rarely counter productive to the propagation of a species as a whole for starters. Particularly actions that result in bearing more children). But I see the case you're making, more or less.
I have trouble with the idea that any sort of 'biological imperative' can be gleaned easily from the present day law and cultural mores however. It's recent spin on things from a more religious and philosophical culture. but that's an aside.

quote:

---

I also don't agree with your assertion that humans got to the top of the food chain by "...following their every whim." That sounds like anarchy to me and certainly conflicts with the myriad of moral, spiritual, and biological laws that complicate this matter. Without the prerequisite rules each culture has, society could not function.

---

I assure you it's been far from asserted by many more learned than I. I wouldn't call it anarchy either, although given the way most people understand the term it's probably as good a word as any for chaos. Of course one has to consider 'the myriad of moral, spiritual laws' as falling under the heading of 'every whim'. Likewise, absolute adherence to such rules would seem to prohibit the amount of change that has gone on. Those with regard to child sexuality and breeding in general have changed quite drastically over time (a see-saw is a better analogy) with rather little effect on how extinct we became over those periods. A biological imperative as explanation for holding them, in whatever form we find them, doesn't seem to hold true.

[Lemur-X]

I find it hard to a 12 year old to know true love.

Look at the success of N'Sync and Britney Spears.

[sacrelicious]

Lunatique- I hear ya, buddy. It's fucked up.

[travis travis]

I've seen her on TV interviews and on Oprah, and there were no bones about her being a looney tune, bi-polar.

Plus, when there's a big fat age difference between lovers, and most certainly when one of them is a child - it's the geezer's moral responsibility to not pursue such a relationship - and this doesn't have to do with the Puritans it has to do with many sensible reasons relating to modern life - my 24-year-old brother was just dating a 15-year-old girl for about a year. It was sick. And had plenty of twists worthy of Jerry Springer. As far as I've seen, it's immaturity, desperateness, and recklessness that starts a relationship like this - not anything like a real relationship.

[Lemur-X]

Somewhat off the topic.

Her brother was my cpu-lab instructor in Jr. High.

[Gandalf-]

Nooo... you're angry because you came here trying to rally some kinda of support for her case in a desperate attempt to work towards getting her sentence reduced:

�I only wanted to see if it was possible to get some more supporters for her case. The more support she gets, the more likely that a small chance of having her sentence reduced is possible."

What kind of reaction did you expect from an art forum? Just because you have a strong opinion on the subject sure as hell doesn't mean we have to agree with it. Apparently though, according to you, we do have to agree with it. Either we do, or you'll never bring up anything "personal" again and eventually convince yourself that all of us are the disillusioned ones.

[Socar MYLES]

I hope you don't think I'm being rude, Lunatique, but from your first post, it just wasn't clear WHAT you were trying to say was unjust--her punishment, the way people think about her, the fact that she was punished at all, or something else entirely. You asked us whose 'side' we are on--hers or the government's. That doesn't really convey indignation over the length of her sentence--it makes it look like you were angry that she was punished at all.

I'm not sure just how long that sentence is...but I think the court was right to make an example of her. Whatever the circumstances, adults should leave children alone. And the fact that she was his teacher, someone who is expected to be even MORE responsible, and therefore accountable, than a parent, made her a perfect candidate.

Yes, she got more PUBLICITY than a male sex criminal would have. Males are statistically much more likely to commit this sort of offense than women are, so it's a bigger shock when a woman does it.

However, I believe it was last year I was reading about a Canadian male teacher who had sex with a young student, who later came forward and took legal action. That teacher is now doing 25 years (the maximum sentence in Canada). It may have been that he had sex with more than one student--I can't remember for certain how many there were--but it doesn't matter. The man committed a crime, and now he's in jail for a very long time. And that is exactly where this lady should also be.

[Steven Stahlberg]

In Sweden it's legal to have consensual sex with a 15 year old. When I was 15 everyone but me was getting laid, it seemed... In fact most 15-year-olds were already veterans at it by then, according to scientific polls from that same period.

I agree - now - that teachers/students is wrong... but back then I would have swum the English channel, killed a bull, walked on burning coals and waved aside any legal issues for a chance to make love to ANY pretty female, no matter what her job was... amazing what hormones do to ya.

Mary Kay wouldn't have gotten such a harsh punishment in most of Europe I think. Then again she would have been dealt with even harsher in some parts of the world I guess...

[Lunatique]

Thanks, Steven.

You're a real pal for putting a light-hearted spin on this much too serious thread.

I guess I was too emotional about this whole thing. I'll relax now.

Hell, when I was 16, I was in love with my 35 yr-old Japanese language teacher. She was elegant, beautiful, sensitive, and loving. We became very close(not in a romantic way), and when she had to return to Japan, we both cried and couldn't bear to be apart. She even asked me to go with her and live with her and her family, but I didn't feel it was right to intrude into her family as a stranger.

Heheheh. If I had gone, I would probably be doing one of the following right now:

1)Working in a Japanese animation studio either as character designer, art director, or director.

2)Doing a manga.

3)Working in a Japanese game company.

4)A musician/singer doing music similar to Buck-Tick or B'z.

I apologize for getting bent out of shape and overly sentimental. All of you longtime regulars know me and how I'm just this big bundle of sticky, saccharine mess.

[Awetopsy]

Lunatique: you asked if we were on her side..

everybody has merely been answering your question.