All over the news today is the release of teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau, who may be reunited with the now-of-age former student whose children she had.
I have my own six-degrees story about her – having met and dined with her late father, insanely conservative California State Senator John Schmitz.
He graced me with an insightful observation about modern partisanship I’ve carried around for a long time
When Moscone ran the Senate, he and I used to fight hammer and tongs all day, then go out and have drinks over dinner and laugh about it. We differed on where we wanted the boat to go, but we recognized that we were in the same boat. These new guys would gladly sink the boat rather then compromise.
but he was certainly a guy with issues of his own.
But the man who saw conspiracies everywhere, who was an equal opportunity bigot, and who decried America’s moral decrepitude, had, himself, a skeleton in the closet. It came to light in a curious way. An Orange County child abuse case in 1982 concerned a thirteen-month-old infant who was discovered with hair so tightly wound around his penis that the organ had nearly been severed. The baby was placed in protective custody, and the court demanded that the father step forward. It turned out to be none other than John G. Schmitz, now again a state Senator, paterfamilias of five children and, er, two others with his German mistress, once his student at Santa Ana.
One of the reasons I’m so resistant to calls for public enforcement of morality is that sad fact that so many of those who do so are moral failures on their own terms.
In my post at Armed Liberal, I suggest that “I’ll take as a given that the family had…issues….” Well, that appears to be true as well (from the same article as above):
…the Schmitz household was revealed to have been a chilly place, often under siege due to John’s latest atrocious remark. Mary Kay and her brother would sometimes play German marching music out the window to drown out angry demonstrators. Schmitz’s wife Mary was said by Mary Kay to be an unaffectionate mother who stressed personal appearance, counseling her daughter to always wear lipstick and even toenail polish. Mary was a vocal ally of Phyllis Schlafly, and appeared on TV to denounce the ERA. She stuck with her man to the end.
Eugene Volokh has an interesting essay on the different thinking about sex between an older woman and a boy as opposed to an older man and a girl. As a parent of three boys, it’s something I’m chewing on a bit. Our emotional reaction is somewhat different; but I know that I’d be mighty pissed off if my twelve year old were seduced by his teacher.
And I’ll also note that if – nine years later – he were to go off and build a real life with her, and be genuinely happy, I’d eat my words on toast.
“And I’ll also note that if – nine years later – he were to go off and build a real life with her, and be genuinely happy, I’d eat my words on toast.”
With all due respect, A.L., WTF?!? Sorry, I’m SO not seeing how this changes the original situation in the slightest.
Moreover, the initial relationship was pathological; I do not see a possible world where the subsequent relationship would not be similarly so. It’s nice to include qualifiers like “a real life” and “genuinely happy,” but that sounds like wacky fantasyland thinking.
Actually, I agree with A.L. A 21 year old is an adult – and those qualifiers are not ornamental. They are the insurance to the parent that the relationship is NOT in fact pathological.
At which point (a) there isn’t anything wrong with it; and (b) a smart parent who wishes to preserve their relationship with their child will take A.L.’s approach.
The human heart is a mystery, and real love can be strange sometimes. Robert Fulghum’s _True Love_ even had a story about a woman who married her mom’s high school flame, and lived happily ever after. Even Fulghum thought that was weird, but it was apparently true love and its success spoke for itself.
I’ll add this…. even if the relationship is less than ideal, by the time your kid is 21 the wise parent will tread carefully, and think twice before stepping in between one’s child and their chosen partner. I’ve seen that done for cause, and turn out well. I’ve also seen that done where the child disagreed, and that’s the sort of thing that creates lasting family splits.
Joe,
Ok, I was probably parsing too finely, but “eat my words on toast” sounds a whole lot like “withdrawing my prior objections.” Since the only objections previously mentioned were to the original relationship…well…it sounded to me like A.L. was conceding a MUCH bigger point than I thought was reasonable. If I was overreacting due to a misinterpretation on my part, I apologize, A.L.
Now, I will stand by my judgement that the relationship as described is pathological (21 y.o. with 44 y.o.–that he first slept with when he was 12 and she was 35). I’m not saying that because of the age difference–although this clearly breaks the Cosmo rule–but because the previous child abuse MUST color the terms of the relationship.
Now, on the flip side, once you take into account the relationship issues, the unfortunate parent is left with figuring out a response to the situation. How do you deal with a son or daughter who is no longer a child, but is involved in a pathological relationship? Love, prayer, and patience to start, and hopefully wisdom comes along soon.
One of the reasons I’m so resistant to calls for public enforcement of morality is that sad fact that so many of those who do so are moral failures on their own terms.
A.L., got to disagree here. I think the town drunk telling kids to stay away from alcohol is WAY better, morally speaking, than a teetotaller encouraging kids to drink. And I’d rather a thoroughly corrupt legislator vote in favor of stricter ethics rules than against them.
I don’t know where we get the idea that only saints can have moral opinions, or that being a hypocrite is a worse sin than condoning immorailty, but it’s a pernicious and foolish idea. People are fallible; unless we are willing to debase morality to the lowest common denominator, then we must occasionaly be hypocrites. It’s part of the human condition.
Now, I’m not so keen on government enforcement of sexual morality myself, but that’s mostly on libertarian grounds.
*Rob Lyman pushes Rex’s button, gears begin to turn*
I don’t get it, Rob. First you say you’re in favour of laws to enforce morality, then you say you’re skeptical when it comes to “government enforcement of sexual morality.” You can’t seperate the two. Either legislating morality is a legitimate function of government or it isn’t, and that includes sexuality whether you like it or not. Which is it?
Rex, find the sentence in my post that says I favor laws to enforce morality, sexual or otherwise.
Granted, I “disagree” with AL, but what I disagreed with was not the policy conclusion, but his reasoning. Perhaps I was a tad unclear, but that’s why I added the last sentence.
As for the government either legislating morality or not, and being unable to separate sexuality from other moral laws, that’s bunk. In most (not all!) jurisdictions fraud is a criminal offense but fornication is not. It’s perfectly possible to think the government should enforce some moral norms but not others.
Rob –
If the moral failings were public, I’d share your view. It’s when the vices are secret – and the practitioners of them are the loudest voices for supression – that I have a problem with. (Up with which I will not put, as they say…)
A.L.
So A.L., is it your view that the Catholic Church could not justifiably condemn child sexual abuse until a couple of years ago, when all the priest scandals broke out into public? OK, that’s an institution, not an individual, but I think the idea is similar.
I’d rather have active child molesters on record as opposing child molestation than supporting it, and I’d rather we be able to discuss right and wrong in public without having to embarass ourselves with full public disclosure. Few people will stand up for right if they are required to discuss the intimate details of their own lives, since few people have led lives that can withstand such scrutiny. I know I haven’t, and I one of the most boring and least sinful people I know.
Any serious discussion of morality that does not take place among angels will by definition involve hypocrites–with me and you among them. It’s better to by a hypocrite than an advocate of immorality.
Rob –
I didn’t mean to suggest (although reading my words, I certainly see how it looks like I did) that no legal (as opposed to voluntary) regulation on ‘moral’ behavior is appropriate in society.
It’s just that there is a gap between those, like me, who think that regulating the core Bad Things is the right thing to do – even if some of those doing the regulating or advocating are themselves sinners – and those who think that we should regulate everything, or at least lots.
Schmitz clearly fell into the latter category (as have such folks as the Bakkers)…
A.L.
And I’d rather a thoroughly corrupt legislator vote in favor of stricter ethics rules than against them.
That would be the one. Was this just a misstatement?
OK, fair enough Rex. But opposing corruption and supporting any and all “laws to enforce morality” are not the same thing. Indeed, I think that example just proves the point of my second post: it’s possible to think that it’s right for the government to enforce some moral norms (taking bribes is wrong and should be illegal, even if the legislators who enact the law are actively on the take) but not others (adultery is wrong but should be legal, even if our legislators are perfectly monogamous).
There’s no ON-OFF switch for government involvement in morality, and the conduct of lawmakers is not relevant to the question of whether the government should be involved.
Or, to put it another way, being a hypocrite might make you a bad person, but it doesn’t make you wrong when you condemn immorality.
I am always hearing such cases because I am unfortunately a lawyer! Why more than 40% of American boys and girls have only ONE parent?