Hey, teacher; Leave them kids alone

I do find I keep commenting on cases where teachers are accused of shagging their pupils. Is this social commentary, or barely disguised frustration that none of my teachers were even remotely fit, let alone promiscuous?




The Amy Gehring case finally reached a climax (if you'll excuse the pun) yesterday. If you are unfamiliar with this lovely little case then I shall briefly recap; a Canadian Supply teacher (the aforementioned Miss Gehring) was accused of seducing 3 teenaged (i.e. 14-15 year old) boys. Various other details fleshed out the trial, such as the salacious reporting of 26 year old Miss Gehring allegedly groping and kissing a young female pupil at the same party that she was supposed to have slept with at least one of the boys (the Daily Mail in particular reported on this bout of bisexuality with a luridity that must have set 50 and 60 year old saliva glands across the country into overdrive...). We were also treated to revelations that Gehring herself could not actually remember if she had slept with one of the boys at a party but had taken the Morning After pill as a precaution because "...I heard a rumour that I had had sex with him". After a trial lasting a few weeks, and after Miss Gehring was shown to be pitiful rather than predatory, she was found Not Guilty on 3 charges of Indecent Assault, with the judge having earlier directed the jury to lodge a Not Guilty verdict on the 4th charge.

The case and it's conduct have raised a few questions about both the law and about morality (as well as leaving me wondering why school parties these days seem to be so much better than they were when I was at school; we were happy with a few awkward sticky fumblings at age 15. Shagging a teacher was never on the cards for most of us, although in fairness most of them were post menopause anyway...). For example, this was not the first time Gehring had faced allegations of this nature. She had been investigated for "inappropriate behaviour" at another school and the agency that employed her, TimePlan, had been warned that she posed a risk to children. Should this have been revealed at the trial? We also have the treatment of the case in the press. It has been marked by a distinct lack of moral outrage. Had Gehring been a man and the accusers been 3 teenaged girls, would the coverage of the trial have been different? Would the verdicts themselves have differed?

First of all, let us look at the press coverage of the case. I always got the feeling that there was a certain amount of sympathy for Gehring being generated by the media. We were told that she grew up in a remote rural hamlet in Canada, thus giving us the implication of a rather sad and lonely young woman. Much was made of her admission in court that she had never really received much attention from her peers, and so the fluttering and flattering of the pupils made her feel wanted and popular. All in all one was left with the impression of an unbalanced and maladjusted lady who was ill equipped to be in a position of authority over young people as she had more in common with them in terms of emotional development than she did with people her own age.

Can anyone see the same sort of coverage happening if a male teacher is accused of sleeping with his pupils? Would anything have been made of his disadvantaged life or emotional well-being? Or is it more likely perhaps that he would be painted in the colours of a monster; a ravening beast whose only thought is for his own gratification and to hell with the consequences? It's not a brilliant comparison, but look at the Jonathon King case and the differences in the language used. King was branded a paedophile. Gehring was cast as a seductress (although frankly it sounded like she practiced the same art of seduction that will be familiar to anyone who has drank far too much on a Friday night and slurred lovingly at the nearest member of the opposite sex until they either respond or someone else catches one's eye...). King lured (only just) underaged boys back to commit sordid acts. Gehring was simply accused of having sex with an (only just) underage boy and his brother. In both cases the boys were, by their own admission, willing partners. It seems that there is a double standard concerning sex and the young.

I suppose there are a number of reasons why this could be. First and foremost let's look at the unspoken reason; no one can realistically picture a 15-year-old boy who has had sex with a 26-year-old female teacher as a victim. Will the young lad be traumatised and have difficulties in forming relationships in later life? Or is it more likely that he will tell every single one of his friends and earn a place in his school folklore? At the school I attended there was a relationship between a female teacher and a boy who had just entered 6th form. Nobody batted an eyelid at this (except of course to congratulate the boy in question; after all, Miss Binks was rather nice...) but had it been a male teacher and female pupil then I have little doubt that reaction would have been different.

It seems that it is all about our different attitudes to the young depending on whether they are male or female. These boys have doubtless been feted by their peers for what they allegedly did (and they will probably still be hailed as heroes; I don't exactly think that a Not Guilty verdict will stem the tide of schoolyard gossip) and they certainly haven't been portrayed as victims in the press. If you cast your mind back 6 months you may or may not remember 15 year old Katherine Baillie from Portsmouth who ran away with her 35 year old maths teacher for almost a year. She was the poor girl who had been duped and seduced by her pervert of a teacher and had lost a year of her life because of his determination to keep her away from those who cared about her. Yet for all we know, the Gehring boys may be traumatised and unsure of themselves whilst Baillie may be entirely comfortable with herself after her year with the teacher. But we don't want to hear that. That would muddy the waters of social morality where men are always the instigators of sex and women are precious little things whose virtue is to be jealously guarded.

I can sense a snigger building at that last sentence and that only goes to show how unrealistic the social conscience that is peddled by the media as an ideal is. That's not to mention how paternalistic and offensive it is to women in general. If we're going to demonise somebody for having sex with a 15 year old, should it matter what sex either party is? I mentioned how difficult it was to see the Gehring boys as victims at any stage of the case. Yet the boys that King seduced were portrayed as poor lost souls who had had their innocence cruelly taken from them. The only major difference that I can see is that the King case involved consensual underage homosexual sex and the Gehring case dealt with consensual underage heterosexual sex (bisexuality is forgivable in a woman apparently...). Not to mention of course the fact that King was found guilty of a crime under British law and Gehring innocent.

Of course, I could just be honest and say that all of the above is a roundabout way of saying that it's not fair that women can sleep with sexually mature young men whilst men are held in contempt for sleeping with sexually mature young women, but that would be frivolous. Society's differing rules for young men and young women are the product of several hundred years of men being on top (figuratively speaking) and 30 years of Women's Lib. is not going to change it for the better (in the case of certain radicals such as Andrea Dworkin I would go so far as to say that they make it worse). We still don't have true equality in our society and as long as cases like this are portrayed in the way that they are then it will continue for many years yet.