Discover more from Sub/Verses
Can Women Be Pedophiles?
and the birth of the "Comstock FEMS-B Theorem"
I love writing this stuff, but I also love to grow my audience, so if you would be so kind as to subscribe and/or share these posts on your socials, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
If I were to give nominations for “most interesting Substack,” the winner would be…Gordon Comstock’s Plant (duh). However, the silver medal would go to Conservative commentator and UT Austin fellow Richard Hanania. Hanania is a unique thinker whom I disagree with frequently but gives you much to consider on his Substack. I highly recommend his review of the greatest television show in history, The Shield.
Recently, Hanania wrote a post called, Hitler, Demi Moore, and Other "Pedophiles," where the “too long; didn’t read” summary is that he claims women can’t be pedophiles and should never be treated as such because even young boys are always up to, let’s say, deliver the goods.
The more robust version of his argument goes something like this:
The impetus of this post came from a viral Twitter thread in which someone posted a video of a 19-year-old Demi Moore giving an extended kiss to a 15-year-old geeky-looking costar. The account that posted the video followed up with a poll asking if Moore did anything wrong in the video, with about two-thirds of the 38,000 respondents saying “yes,” with many calling her a pedophile.
I recommend you watch it and draw your own conclusions:
Hanania thinks this is ridiculous and proceeds to explain why:
[t]here’s been a cultural shift over the last two decades in how we think about human sexuality, one in which we’ve simply lost touch with biological realities. The idea that teenage boys can be victimized by older women, like the demand that men only be attracted to women of their own age, can only exist in a culture in which many aspects of heterosexuality are repressed, if not demonized. Blank slatism is the common thread here, and it’s warped the culture in ways that I suspect are tied to the sex recession, the decline of marriage, falling birthrates, and general misery among young people.
He follows this up by describing how this philosophy is a merging of the worst parts of liberal views of sex (dislikes age differences, mostly when the man is older, and denies the differences in the perception of sex between the sexes) and conservative views on sex (paranoid about elites, the tendency to create moral panics around children and the belief of harsh punishments for law-breaking). As examples of this mania, he cites examples such as the backlash against Andy Pudzer (CEO of Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr.) when Trump nominated him a Secretary of Labor because the fast food chains ads were “sexist” by showing girls in bikini’s eating their burgers, and that people on both sides of the aisle were mad a Fifty Shades of Grey because it depicts how a woman likes to be dominated by a rich, powerful man, etc.
It’s a fascinating piece, and I recommend you all read it here:
Now here’s the thing, I agree with Hanania on nearly all of this. The Demi Moore thing, the blank statism, the sexual moral panics…check, check, check. Calling Moore a pedophile from this video is like when 49ers (of the gold rush ilk, not the NFL kind) tried to pass off fool’s gold as the real McCoy. Yeah, it superficially looked like gold, but when you analyzed it for 10 seconds, it fell apart in your hands.
As an example of this phenomenon playing out in the real world, Hanania references the case of Alexandria Vera. This unlucky teacher made a 14-year-old student very lucky, including getting knocked up by him, and was sentenced to a decade in prison.
Would I have been happy to be taken advantage of by her when I was 14? Of course (that was then; I want to be clear that I am a happily married man now… hi honey), as I am sure most of the men reading this would have been, too.
My issue with the argument is that Hanania takes it too far.
Thanks for reading Gordon Comstock’s Plant! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
First, it is conspicuously apparent that, societally, we don’t treat of-age females having sex with an under-age male with the same seriousness as the inverse. I mean, there was a running series over at Barstool Sports that covered teacher sex scandals and rest assured, they only covered one type. It was treated with such a lack of seriousness that there was an annual “Sex Scandal Starting Lineup” where the author, the great Jerry Thornton, assigned baseball positions to the top (aka- hottest & dirtiest) starlets of the year.
Does anyone want to take bets if the male version of this exists anywhere where the FBI can find it?
For the sake of this discussion, let’s put aside the fact that frisky Alex was impregnated by her 8th-grade beau, as that is a significant complicating factor and could be an entirely separate post; so let’s skip to the “non-killing-babies” part…
Hanania makes two core assumptions with this absolutist concept; one explicit and one implicit.
All pre-pubescent boys will have sex with any of-age female at any time (explicit)
The power dynamics of a student/teacher relationship are irrelevant when the woman is the one in power (implicit)
Remember, even if the boy claims the sex was consensual, statutory rape laws are in place based on the concept that a minor does not have the mental capacity to consent to sex with anyone, so even if little Bobby says, “I was really excited to learn from Ms. Laura what a ‘piledriver’ is,” it doesn’t matter. The act itself is the crime. Therefore, if either of these ideas are proven to be non-absolute, then the concept falls apart, and the relationships must be reviewed by either a court or some independent board to adjudicate them.
And this is where we will get into some, let’s say, uncomfortable situations.
Let’s start with concept #1, which I believe is easily disprovable. So as any responsible, well-adjusted adult does in 2023, I decided to complain in his comments section.
Hanania responds with…
This is pure, unadulterated cope. Looks matter in this case, and they matter bigly. I know it, you know, Richard knows it, the Dala Lama knows it, the lady who played the obese mother in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape knows it, and every human with firing synapses in their brain knows it.
How do I know? Because I am a post-pubescent human, and we all have seen people we don’t want to have sex with based on how they look. It doesn’t necessarily mean she is victimizing them, but it certainly increases the chances of it.
Or people that, as Vin told Tony in The Sopranos, “I wouldn’t fuck one of those broads with your dick.”
This is where my mathematical genius comes into play.
Boom. Enter the “Comstock Female Educator/Male Student Banging Theorem,” heretofore to be known as the Comstock FEMS-B Theorem. Move over Pythagoras and Archimedes; there’s a new mathematical wunderkind in town.
I know this kind of Good Will Hunting type genius is blowing most of your minds right now, so let me break it down into simpler terms that you high school dropouts can understand.
The question is, as the female teacher declines in attractiveness (now known as the FTH, or Female Teacher Hotness), does the average male student’s desire to have sex with them decrease (now known as the DTB, or Desire to Bang Line)? If the answer is no, the chart looks like this, where the slope of the DTB line is 0. Meaning that no matter the FTM, the boy will always be 100% willing to have sex with her:
Let me add some visuals to the chart to make my point further:
On the left, you have PE teacher, Ms. O’Donnell, coming in at an FTH of 10. On the right, you have everyone’s favorite Spanish teacher, Ms. Everhart, scoring an FTH of 100.
Hanania’s argument is that there is no slope to that “DTB” line whether you are being seduced by the woman teaching you floor hockey or the one teaching you how to say, “gracias senora Everhart, me gustaría quedarme después de clase para obtener más ayuda.” Preposterous! Inconceivable! That argument is an affront to all which is holy on Earth. I cannot abide by this slanderous libel.
Now, let’s say the slope of the line looks like this:
Where a teacher with an FTH of 10 gives off a DTB of 90, and once the FTH reaches 50, the DTB becomes 100. This is not a crazy assumption and may, in fact overstate the DTB of a 10 FTH teacher (I haven’t worked out the mathematical constant of the equation yet).
To the previous point I made, if there is ANY slope to the line, even if a 10 FTH delivers a 99 DTB, someone must adjudicate where on the FTH scale the teacher resides to determine if she is capable of committing statutory rape based on the boys reduced desire for coitus.
How would that work?
Would this include just everyday teacher clothing? Will there be an evening gown and bikini aspect to the judging? Should they write an essay on a topic of their choice (some people are attracted to brains, after all)? A home ec portion… what’s the saying, “the way to ‘a-boy-with-recently-dropped-testies’ heart is through his stomach?”
I’m going to go out a limb here, but I’d say in a post-Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer world, that would not fly with NOW.
These are hard cases (get your mind out of the gutter). I certainly don’t believe these situations should be pursued with the same vigor as cases of the male teacher/female student variety, and I don’t think the punishments should be as hash, but to say there is never a situation that needs further review by some authority, is simply an impossibility.
100% of underage boys will not want to have sex with 100% of of-age women. Not a chance.
So to all you spicy lady teachers out there- if there is a boy in your class that you think might make a good boy toy, remember to refer to the Comstockian FEMS-B Theory and be honest with yourself on where you rate on the FTH meter...your future could depend on it.
Coming to a high school textbook near you.