Yet another student/teacher sexual scandal case in Utah. Every time of these arises, whether the offender is male or female, there are gender dynamics and rhetoric thrown about within the reports and ensuing public commentary on boards, perhaps apropriately so. But when the offenders are female, it seems the case is extra newsworthy, extra vile, extra important, extra outrageous.
In this latest one, I noticed something interesting. The psychology professor notes that when it's a man--it's about the sex. "But it's more complicated when you're talking about women. For them, Strassberg says getting into a relationship like this is likely more about them: their needs, having control, getting attention."
How do these dynamics he mentions (personalized needs, control, attention) not describe sexual motivators, for both men and women? There is a clear line drawn--an opposition. For men, it's sex. But, for women, it's....not. So, this implies for men--need, control and attention are not involved with sex. Men are purely physical, uncomplicated. One dimensional, so there you go--problem soved, no need to inquire further. It's not condoned by any means, but what are you going to do? Boys will be boys.
Women, however, are oh so complicated and difficult! Sex can't be merely a physical motivator, because women seeking sex must be looking for something else. Women are always viewed as using sex as a tool to get the side effects. Here's the thing--it's all the same. Sex is its effects.
But, there is something implied in the word "need" here for women, and it isn't sexual gratification as it is for men. It's "more complicated." There's also something a bit alarming about the phrase, "...getting into a relationship like this is likely more about them." "Them", referring to women. It's narcissistic and selfish. Again, a line of difference is drawn. This is all comparison. What does it imply about a man's reason for entering into such a relationship? It's a very blantantly faulty argument.