This is a problem?

EdsonNascimento

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/21/as ... l-acts-on/

22 year old with a 17 year old with a headline that starts - cheerleading coach... I think more details are needed.

Ummm.... Did his Dad give him high 5's or what? There has to be a pat on the back at the very least.

And, not to miss the other obvious joke, but I think Bart Simpson has moved out of home to his arch rivals' town.

Jason P

curlygirly9

Hahahaha, I love that episode :nono:

Jason P wrote:

Last-12-Exit

So its illegal for staff to engage with students. But what if the guy was 18 and was a student? Would it still be illegal?

comebackgirl

Last-12-Exit wrote:

So its illegal for staff to engage with students. But what if the guy was 18 and was a student? Would it still be illegal?

Probably not. It would still probably cost her her job and she could be in violation of Title IX and harassment guidelines. I'm not sure of the law in Indiana, but in NJ adolescents can generally consent to sex after the age of 16 unless the person they are engaging with has some type of authority over them (i.e. parent, teacher, guardian, etc). Then they are protected until the age of 18.

An excerpt from the NJ code:

Aggravated sexual assault is a crime of the first degree. - 2C: 14-2b,c Sexual Assault
c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

4) The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

a. The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree;or
b. the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim; or 
c. the actor is a foster parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

bindy123

comebackgirl wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

So its illegal for staff to engage with students. But what if the guy was 18 and was a student? Would it still be illegal?

Probably not. It would still probably cost her her job and she could be in violation of Title IX and harassment guidelines. I'm not sure of the law in Indiana, but in NJ adolescents can generally consent to sex after the age of 16 unless the person they are engaging with has some type of authority over them (i.e. parent, teacher, guardian, etc). Then they are protected until the age of 18.

An excerpt from the NJ code:

Aggravated sexual assault is a crime of the first degree. - 2C: 14-2b,c Sexual Assault
c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

4) The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

a. The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree;or
b. the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim; or 
c. the actor is a foster parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

I love this law...but it doesnt exist in New south Wales, Australia.

I worked in a youth refuge and we discovered a staff member had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old female client...in was obviously a breach of our policies and procedures so we were able to sack him...but there was absolutely nothing that could happen to him legally.

I know I am a prude but I do personally have a problem with this...Anyone who takes on a role of responsibility working with children and young people needs to be able to practice appropriate boundaries

comebackgirl

bindy123 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

So its illegal for staff to engage with students. But what if the guy was 18 and was a student? Would it still be illegal?

Probably not. It would still probably cost her her job and she could be in violation of Title IX and harassment guidelines. I'm not sure of the law in Indiana, but in NJ adolescents can generally consent to sex after the age of 16 unless the person they are engaging with has some type of authority over them (i.e. parent, teacher, guardian, etc). Then they are protected until the age of 18.

An excerpt from the NJ code:

Aggravated sexual assault is a crime of the first degree. - 2C: 14-2b,c Sexual Assault
c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

4) The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

a. The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree;or
b. the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim; or 
c. the actor is a foster parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

I love this law...but it doesnt exist in New south Wales, Australia.

I worked in a youth refuge and we discovered a staff member had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old female client...in was obviously a breach of our policies and procedures so we were able to sack him...but there was absolutely nothing that could happen to him legally.

I know I am a prude but I do personally have a problem with this...Anyone who takes on a role of responsibility working with children and young people needs to be able to practice appropriate boundaries

I agree. It's completely different for a 22 year old to have a relationship with 17 year old when they have some type of authority over them. Most of the students I work with are 18-22 and they are still vulnerable. There's just a totally different dynamic involved when there's a fiduciary relationship....even if the students don't realize it themselves at the time.

stargirl69

I bet he is the legend among his friends now Fuss about nothing I say.

bindy123

stargirl69 wrote:

I bet he is the legend among his friends now Fuss about nothing I say.

Yeah I know what you are saying...aq guy I went to school with was sleeping with a 30 year old teacher...and that was definately how we all felt at the time

But the question I have, and I am honestly not looking to start an argument...but where do we draw the line...

All of us would agree that if a 55 year old priest was having sex with a ten year old altar boy that would be outrageous, disgusting and he should go to jail for a long time...but what if its a 40 year old priest and a 16 year old...or a 25 year old priest and a 17 year old gay altar boy...where do we draw the line...what do you think (hope that question doesnt sound sarcastic)

stargirl69

The difference here is he was 17 she was 22,both over the legal age limit to have sex in Britain.I do not believe this is an abuse of power.
What 17 year old lad wouldn't be skipping hoops to get some 22 year old pussy? I have never know of one alive,but if you do show me.
I am not interested in getting into debate about the religion based examples you gave as this was not what happened in this event.

comebackgirl

I think the reason she was arrested had more to do with the relationship and less to do with age difference. As it states in the article, this wouldn't have been an issue if he hadn't been a student at the school. The law is meant to prevent an abuse of power. As a teacher or coach people have more influence over a kid than they would in another situation. A lot of times things like this happen because of a narcissistic need on the part of the teacher to feel attractive and desirable. Whether the kid suffers any negative consequences probably depends on his self-esteem, relationship experiences, social connections and whatever hopes he had for a relationship with her. If he was also mostly interested in it for sex and an ego boost little if any harm may be done. But if he has little family or social support and really thought she cared when she really just wanted to be the "hot teacher", for example, it could be devastating. Anyone who knows a 17 year old or who has been 17 knows that they are much more dramatic and affected by relationships than people are in their 20s. While their physical and sexual development might be mature, their emotional development is not. This is all just hypothetical, not knowing anything about these two, but probably part of the reason the law is in place.