Sexual Predator over in Townhouses

As a married man - having an affair.

 

Responsible for sexualizing their relationship. Doctors/therapists/clergy, etc. are not supposed to have sex with their clients/patients/worshippers. It's part of the Hippocratic Oath and some ethics law. I think it is against the law too but I wouldn't swear to that.

Malpractice.

 

Okay--I breaking my promise to myself to stay out of this. A promise I made when Serenditpity came after me (again!) for saying that after all of the research everyone did on this guy I wasn't afraid for my 5 year old son. I don't know what got her so riled up...anyway, I said to myself...BEWARE OF THAT THREAD!

However, in solidarity, I have to give a shout out to Flynnibus. I totally see your points. I totally agree with you. Thanks for fighting the rational fight.

 

Whoa. You need to be careful in making such accusations.

I do have a problem with hyperbole and also when you categorize others who disagree with you negatively which you seem to have a tendency to do. For example on the hospital thread when you indicated that others who didn't agree with you had "narrow viewpoints" and above now you indicate that others in this thread who don't agree with you are irrational. (If they agree with Flynnibus they are rational er go if they don't....they are irrational.) We can disagree without disparaging each other.

While I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, let's not say people are not rational just because they hold a different viewpoint. I think that is completely fair to request. Don't you?

With regard to Flynnibus. We will have to agree to disagree b/c I believe we will never see eye to eye on this issue and his logic is completely lost on me. No, not that I don't get it. That I don't think it is applicable. And yes, I consider myself quite rational. I am passionate about the subject, but not irrational and not narrow minded (er...I mean narrow viewpointed...) But I will defend and respect his right to disagree with me anytime.

The bottom line is we have a guy who is on the sexual predators list after being convicted in a court of law. No one suggested that we freak out upon seeing him at the grocery store and hold our children tight to our bosom (which is what you suggested those who disagreed with you were saying). We can disagree on whether or not we feel the 17 year old is accountable or not. Fine. But let's not say that people "come after" you just because they disagree with you. And let's not say those that disagree with you are huddled with their children for fear of this guy. That's a bit of hyperbole.

I'm sorry that you took my posts too personally. I will try to be mindful of that in the future. Have a good one.

 

Flynnibus and others,

Let's say your daughter is 17 and a pretty good girl, far as you know. She is a virgin, which in itself says something these days. Her youth pastor - hey, she goes to church too and is involved there - is older but not too old! He is so confident. He gives her special attention and treats her like he cares. She develops a crush on him. Maybe he pursues her, or maybe she pursues him - you will never really know all the facts. But despite his marriage, her age, his position as an authority figure to her and a trusted church employee with a duty to morally guide the young members of the church - they have a sexual relationship.

Who is wrong? Obviously both are. But your daughter is still in your care, she is not an adult and you know her to make poor, impulsive decisions as all teens do. Do you feel she is equally to blame? I doubt it. You would probably feel enraged that this guy took advantage of an impressionable girl, that he did not control himself, that he did not honor his position in the church. You would probably want him fired, never to work with kids again, and you would probably want everyone informed about his actions. You would probably want him convicted of whatever crime he could be found guilty of.

Would you think your daughter should be also convicted of a crime for her role in this "relationship?" I doubt it.

Do you think the guy should get a pass because your daughter was asking for it? Doubt it.

Even without the emotional component of this girl being someone's daughter, the known facts are sufficient to conclude that the guy here was legally and ethically at fault and there should be consequences. Maybe the 17 yr old girl was a vixen waiting to strike her first victim, as some seem to think. Too bad, so sad, the guy should have known he had more to lose and exercised better restraint.

I really thought society was beyond blaming women for being too sexual for their own good.

As for pole dancers, why the moral judgment? They are making a buck, at the expense of the lowlife men who have nothing better to do than watch almost naked women. If it weren't for men's sexual depravity there wouldn't be a market for this work.

 

Isn't sex with a minor a strict liability crime. There are very few of this type of crime, but you do not need to know that the (mens rea) victim is a minor. In other words it does not matter that you thought she was 21 or if she told you that she was 21 or if she showed you a fake ID that shows that she is 21. All that matters is that she is not. So yes, consensual sex with a minor is statutory rape. Am I missing something in your thought process?

 

Exactly! And this youth minister has to take responsibility for HIS actions! I agree that we need to take responsibility for our actions. And sometimes we need to own it. And sometimes....it's someone else's responsibility and blame. And in this case, IMO...it's the minister who needs to (and did by his sentence) take responsibility and own it.

 

Flynnibus - your comments suggest that the girl in this situation is equally to blame yet the guy unfairly faces all the consequences due to the arbitrariness of the age component of the law he broke. If I have this correct.

Unfortunately we have a lot of arbitrary age rules: why age 21 to drink when you can be blown up in a war at age 18? Maybe some laws should be changed, but until then we all have to live within them. This youth minister knew the law but decided to throw caution to the wind. Sorry if he then faces a harsher penalty than she does. Ultimately the law he broke was designed to protect children, and at age 17 she qualified as one. IMO even 18 is still a child. These days most kids are not mature at age 18, there is much evidence of the delay of adulthood.

However, there is a big difference in maturity and life experience between a 17 year old girl and a 28 yr old man who is employed, married, and expecting a child. She should know better, but HE should REALLY know better. As I said, he was in a position to lose more so the burden was on him to use proper judgment and control. Maybe what is comes down to is that he was just plain stupid.

If it makes you feel better, when the girl is a 28yr old teacher and sleeps with a 17 yr old student she will face the same wrath and laws.

 

You said irrational, not her. Simply stating that one person is rational, doesn't mean that everyone else is irrational.

 

Hypotheticals are so much fun and accomplish and prove nothing.

 

That's not what I got from his posts at all. I would say what you're suggesting is way off base, but that's just me.

 

Why is her degree of "blame" even relevant?

 

I understand that this whole thread is a result of people reacting to a "sexual predator" nearby - which may or may not (I think not) pose any real threat to our community. So yes, the law results in judging, which may not necessarily be fair or accurate

I think some on this forum were reacting to what appeared to be your judgment of the girl, like she was the one to blame and that the guy was an unfortunate dupe. There was a "blame the victim" (woman who asked for it) aspect that some read into your comments, whether you intended it or not.

Actually, I think people find it more disgusting and reprehensible if an older woman is found to be in a sexual relationship with a minor male. It is more the norm that older men take up with young things. So when it is reversed it is more shocking. I think the "woman predator" would be equally shunned, but for somewhat different reasons.

Historically speaking, it is predominantly the man who is the predator. So statistics are not in men's favor, hence the stereotype. And if some laws are currently set up to advantage women over men, giving women the benefit of the doubt, well, again history plays the critical role. Women have needed extra protections by the law due to most of society's ingrained advantages for men. Maybe when women catch up with regard to equality (Lilly Ledbetter Act i.e.), then you can ***** about the woes of men. That said, men do have to walk a fine line these days - you are paying for the sins of your fathers.

 

It's not and shouldn't even be part of the discussion. But some folks here seem to think it should be a factor due to societal issues and unfair treatment of men when it comes to sex crimes, workplace issues, etc. Go figure...

 

Interesting, my protest at the beginning of the thread was the mentality of some folks immediately giving benefit of the doubt to the sex offender without any information on the crime that had been commited. Then assigning blame to the victim here. Then expanding it further to a sexist, general discussion of attributing a degree of responsibility to female victims regardless of age.