Sexual Predator over in Townhouses

Not me. I think he did get what he deserved.

My point is that I find it truly hard to believe that this 17 year old girl was not complicit in what happened.

 

Huh?? A little sensitive Ozgood...I was teasing you a little bit about how you "granted" me something that was a fact. C'mon now.

 

For arguements sake:

Two 17 year olds are involved in a sexual relationship. Male turns 18 six months before female. Is male a sexual predator? What if the roles were reversed?

It baffles me how criminals under 18 can be tried as adults but in circumstances like this because they are under age they are automatically obsolved of any wrong doing. Sounds like poor parenting to me. If he waited until her 18th birthday, is he less of a creep and danger to our children?

 

Again. Huh?? Of course she didn't commit a crime. That's what I've been saying...welcome to my point of view! You're really reaching here Flynnibus. And absolutely if a teacher, coach, minister or other person of authority had sexual relations with a minor I would feel exactly the same. YOU'RE the one who appears to have a problem with the 17 year old being a female. Spin much? :rolleyes3:

 

There is a big difference between two high school or college kids having relations and being close in age and a person of authority (e.g. again: teacher, coach, religious leader that is 28--not a school peer) As has been posted many times...it's about the authority figure part. We can come up with hypotheticals all day. What we're discussing is this particular incident.

 

Flynnibus - the whole issue of responsibility/blame/guilt here lies with the person who is in a position of authority and power over another - can you not see that? I haven't seen you address or acknowledge that in any of your posts. It has nothing to do with the fact that the 17 yr old is a girl. Haven't you seen the cases in the last couple of years where 22-28 yr old female teachers are having sex with their 14-17 yr old male students? It is no different than that. And the teachers are going to jail for it and the boys are NOT being charged with anything but (according to you and some others) maybe we should make them take more responsibility for getting involved with their teachers because after all, they choose to have sex with their teachers.

 

Just for the record, in the case of doctors, therapists, clergy, teachers, etc. it doesn't matter if the victim is over 18, the person in authority is still held accountable. You can be over 21 and it is still the responsibility of the person in authority to assure that it does not become a sexual relationship. It's part of the Hippocratic (sp?) Oath and that does hold up in court.

 

Hey Serendipity, sorry if it seems like I'm repeating all the same things you are saying! You are making such good points! I think some of the posters are just not familiar with this concept because men in authority and power have gotten away with this sort of thing for so long.

 

You just can't admit that you are wrong. It might be wise to let this go at this point.

 

Not at all. I have enjoyed the excellent points that you have made. Totally agree with you...and I suspect that there are others out there that do as well but may not want to enter the fray. Can't say that I blame them at all.

 

No, this isn't an issue of age either. She could have been 21 but the court would have still found him responsible because he was in a position of authority. And I know this for a fact because I know a case where the girl was 21 and the man in power/authority was fired, he would not be able to work in that field again and he was found guilty. However, the girl and her family choose not to bring criminal charges against him although they could have. He was still held completely responsible by the state agency where he worked, his bosses, all the lawyers and even the judge and she was not a minor.

 

I think everyone agrees that the guy is guilty and did something very wrong.

The issue of disagreement seems to be whether or not the girl was complicit and equally responsible for whatever transpired. On that note, I don't think she was equally responsible since her youth minister is legally an adult (and a married man) so holds the ultimate responsibility for making good decisions. If the girl was either taken advantage of (not by force, though) or the relationship was her idea, the youth minister is still the one required by law (and by the church) to ensure nothing of a sexual relationship develops between them.

To take this to a lighter tone, I'll just say that for some people this is a Lifetime television movie of the week where an innocent girl is seduced and taken advantage of by an authority figure. To others it is like a movie about two individuals having a sexual relationship with no thought to moral or legal issues. Either way the dude is totally wrong. The girl made a stupid mistake but is not legally responsible under state law. Fair enough to say?

On a related note, I'm very glad that my husband (or myself for that matter) doesn't work with children/teens so that this is even a likely or possible scenario!! The dude ruined reputations of youth ministers everywhere because now parents will be suspicious. That may be a good thing, though.

 

Well said. (Don't you just love how people say that when they agree with you? ) Seriously...I agree with your comments. And, I too was wondering if I watch too many Lifetime movies which are largely based on true stories...or if others don't watch enough! Thanks for the injection of levity...certainly I needed it!

 

Yeah, you can agree with me anytime! Whether or not the girl was the "Long Island Lolita" and the guy was Joey Butafuco, it's still wrong all the way around.


P.S. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead so this will be my last post on the subject.