Our tendency to venerate female sexuality and regard male sexuality as inherently dirty is as timeless as the earth itself. Feminists often ask why a man is called a stud if he has sex with many partners, whereas a woman is called a slut if she does the same. This is the reason why.

We have quite a salacious story for you today. It is one of those timeless tales of young lust, bureaucratic incompetence, and gynocentrism. It comes [bad choice of words?] to us from the Belgian publication Seven on Seven (7 Sur 7). I will be using a translation provided by a user from the discussion on r/MensRights. Based on the four semesters of French I took in higher ed and a scan of the article under Google Translate, the translation looks very accurate. Let us begin.

Six teenagers were removed from Collège Saint-Michel in Brussels. The six young men were shown the door after a sex scandal within the institution.

Expelled for merely having sex. Does that sound a little…excessive?

Young people, who were supposed to enjoy the excursion to the monastery to take stock of their values and their faith, have preferred to organize group sex.

Go figure.

Don’t get me wrong: group sex can be dangerous because it radically increases the risk of sexually transmitted infections.

Five took part, along with a student of sixteen who was perfectly willing, in collective sex at a retreat in Libramont . The girl won the right to return to college.

According to the article the sex was consensual. You may be wondering about statutory rape, however. But this is where it may get interesting. All of the participants were 15-16 years of age due to being in the fourth year of secondary school, which starts at 12 in Belgium. In Belgium the age of consent is 16. And while the girl was 16, it is possible that one of the five boys was younger.

Many regions have enacted what in the United States are called “Romeo and Juliet” laws where the sex is deemed consensual if the participants are underage if the difference in their ages is small. I was unable to locate an online source confirming Belgium’s stance on this, and would appreciate if anyone had any authoritative sources on the matter.

At the very least, however, I hope we can all agree that punishing only young men for consensual sex is not just a jerk move, but sexist as well.

Five students in Secondary IV, boys, allegedly planned and carried out their fantasies with a friend of sixteen. One student reportedly masturbated, the next two have had full intercourse with her, the last two also masturbated, all in the boys’ bathroom. The girl had also tried to join another non-consenting student in bed but was stopped by students.

The bolded sentence is interesting. It would be one thing if she simply wanted another student to have sex, the student refused, she stopped, and that was it. But apparently there is more to it. Why else would she have to be stopped by other students?

I can acknowledge the possibility that the article may fumble a little on reporting the matter accurately. I can also acknowledge that the meaning of those bolded words may vary across geographic space, and across languages. But if it is correct that she did try to force an unwilling student to have sex and everyone was expelled but her, then it gravely calls into question the moral authority of the administration.

Pay attention to the numbers in this next section:

The six boys involved them can no longer put a foot in Saint -Michel . Yet Paul Benedict FRANEAU Monge , director, wants to put things right in the Brussels newspaper: ‘ The facts are inconsistent with our values. It would have been impossible to continue the journey together, but they (the expelled students) are not, and I repeat, hooligans or gangsters.’

Six boys were expelled, but remember: only five had sex. What did the other one do? Was he the one whom the young woman attempted to have sex with and had to be stopped by the other students? There are a lot of unanswered questions here, and none of the possibilities make the administration look good.

The head of the institution will therefore avoid at all costs to have its alumni seen as rapists, as the relations were consensual. He also hoped that the exclusion of children will have no impact on their future.

That is a foolish hope. Perhaps one born out of deliberate self-deception. How can kicking people out at the end of their time at secondary school not have an impact on them?

The other side has cried injustice. The mother of one of excluded boys has disagreed, and claims that the young girl was a participant. ‘She is known to be disturbed and nymphomaniac,’ she says. The mother reported a proposal to the boys, met immediately by the teenagers, which resulted in much sex occurring in the bathroom of a dormitory during the retreat.

This is just me, but I have a hard time agreeing with the usage of the term “nymphomaniac.” It seems a lot like slut-shaming to me. However, addictions are real, and it may indeed be the case that this young woman’s addiction to sex led her to almost rape another student.

Legal counsel for the parents suggested an appeal to the organizing authority, and possibly in court, if the parents of the boys did not win the case. All are outraged by the group sanction decided by the director while the charges against each deserve, in their eyes, different and more proportional measures.

Related News Reports:

http://www.sudinfo.be/1000849/article/2014-05-07/scandale-sexuel-au-college-saint-michel-le-fils-d-un-ministre-federal-a-particip

http://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/detail_scandale-sexuel-au-college-saint-michel-le-parquet-lance-une-enquete?id=8263320