Former soccer coach accused of having sex with 2 teens.

[Lobby]

I have to agree with DreamB and a 1 on this one. The young men, yes young men were salivating at the chance on banging this young philly! I know I was when I was a even a 15 year old. There should be a line drawn but that line should be a reasonable one in my opinion.

What is a reasonable line to you?.

 

[a 1 player]

So...

Here in Canada this would have been legal, except for the providing of alcohol. Right below is the line drawn in Canada, much lower than the one in the case being debated. So... to play 'devils advocate', was a line crossed??? This is my point exactly, despite what the law says there IS A LINE IN THE SAND, and it is not necessarily a good one. Just because something is law does not mean it is right. By Canadian law, a college kid can legally sleep with a grade school one, and there is not a damn thing (legally) that can be done about it. I see this as disturbing, some people see this as an opportunity. This is precicely the reason I do not think 'age in years' is the best method to measure consent. I just can't think of a better way.




The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.[SUP][7][/SUP]

There exist two close in age exemptions, depending on the age of the younger partner. A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual less than two years older than they. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older than they.[SUP][8][/SUP]

Criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her, or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers, and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative", s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

So...

Here in Canada this would have been legal, except for the providing of alcohol. Right below is the line drawn in Canada, much lower than the one in the case being debated. So... to play 'devils advocate', was a line crossed??? This is my point exactly, despite what the law says there IS A LINE IN THE SAND, and it is not necessarily a good one. Just because something is law does not mean it is right. By Canadian law, a college kid can legally sleep with a grade school one, and there is not a damn thing (legally) that can be done about it. I see this as disturbing, some people see this as an opportunity. This is precicely the reason I do not think 'age in years' is the best method to measure consent. I just can't think of a better way.




The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.[SUP][7][/SUP]

There exist two close in age exemptions, depending on the age of the younger partner. A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual less than two years older than they. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older than they.[SUP][8][/SUP]

Criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her, or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers, and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative", s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.

I don't understand. You say here in Canada this would have been legal, but the offender is in a position of authority, the age difference is greater then 2-5 years {she is 23, they are 16 & 17}, and alcohol was given to them which would impair their judgement to consent. I think based on what you provided, it still shows it would be illegal here too in one form or another.

Having said all that, I can not go into another country and expect them to change the rules to what my country has. This happened in the states, they have laws on the books against this. It is unacceptable in their laws. Debating what the law in another country should be is pointless. That is like debating what the law should be in Dubai. I know that the laws are different, so I don't go there. I will, like I have here, voice my opinion of support, or not depending on the case. To which we both have and I have said that we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not think it was acceptable behavior for the 3 reasons I pointed out. Power position, age of consent/majority/adulthood, providing alcohol to dimension proper consent. You guys want to harp on the point of age, throw away the alcohol and ignore the position so that it is just a couple of horny teens getting on with a hot semi older women. I get the porn fantasy but this is reality. Is there really a dispute about the 3 points I have made? Other then it burst the fantasy bubble?

 

[Kacey Kaylee]

I once had a guy tell me he's a virgin, not so much a boyfriend, more of a friend. I knew he wanted me. I think he was just using the virgin trick, so I would feel sorry for him and be his first. This woman in jail is on a power trip and wanted to be their first. Its more her fantasy, to "break in" some virgins. I think she deserves to be in jail though, but my point is, if you want game some women are more willingly if you pretend to be a newbie rather then brag about your sexual exploits and then expect some. Women like to be special, not another notch in the bed post. As for my personal story, lets just say "trick or treat" and leave it at that.

 

[a 1 player]

I don't understand. You say here in Canada this would have been legal, but the offender is in a position of authority, the age difference is greater then 2-5 years {she is 23, they are 16 & 17}, and alcohol was given to them which would impair their judgement to consent. I think based on what you provided, it still shows it would be illegal here too in one form or another.

Having said all that, I can not go into another country and expect them to change the rules to what my country has. This happened in the states, they have laws on the books against this. It is unacceptable in their laws. Debating what the law in another country should be is pointless. That is like debating what the law should be in Dubai. I know that the laws are different, so I don't go there. I will, like I have here, voice my opinion of support, or not depending on the case. To which we both have and I have said that we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not think it was acceptable behavior for the 3 reasons I pointed out. Power position, age of consent/majority/adulthood, providing alcohol to dimension proper consent. You guys want to harp on the point of age, throw away the alcohol and ignore the position so that it is just a couple of horny teens getting on with a hot semi older women. I get the porn fantasy but this is reality. Is there really a dispute about the 3 points I have made? Other then it burst the fantasy bubble?

Ms. Fatale,

I agree with you, and you are correct that I did entirely ignore the fact that she was in a position of power. I also agree she should be punished, I just don't really care that this happened, (maybe because it did not hit close to home). I have no doubts that if it were my daughters in the situation I would see it differently.

I guess I did not explain my point correctly... The thing I was trying to say was (only)... I have an issue when ANY judgement is based solely on 'moral' grounds when the 'morals' cannot be quantified by reason. What makes the moral position of 5 gray haired judges have any more value than 5 housewives, 5 college graduates or 5 escorts? Are old men in a courtroom in a better position to protect children, (or anyone else for that matter), any better that I as a parent am? I have children roughly the age of the two in the case and I would absolutely lose it if they were in that position.

An excellent example of laws being challenged based on reason and not on a 'moral code' is exactly what is happening with the laws on prostitution right now. A group of people are challenging the 'moral code' with facts about personal freedoms, safety, working conditions, etc. Because the challengers case is based on 'facts' and not on 'peoples personal views', laws are being changed for the better.

My point being, 18, 16, 14 (in terms of consent), 19 and 21 (in terms of a drinking age), 18 (in order to vote), 40 (to become president of the USA), or 65 (to be a senior citizen) are all arbitrary numbers that have no basis in reality, and have never been challenged with proof as to 'why?' these are the right numbers. These are all numbers we have taken on 'faith' that many people believe are there for a good reason, when in fact in many cases they are not. Some of these numbers are challenged daily, (I will give my kid part of a beer if she mows the lawn on a hot day), kids drink at parties, have sex in high school, our kids without employment or elders on a fixed income try to save money in bus fare or on seniors day. Morality is not to be decided by the whim of some judge who 'feels' he knows what is best for the majority of people, rather it must have a firm foothold based on substantiated proof. My debate is NOT about the age of consent, it is not about fantasy. It IS about 'on what grounds' is something is considered moral, why do we take it as moral, and how do we know it is moral, other than by someone just telling us it is?

It is better to make a mistake than to take anything on faith. If one makes a mistake, they have the ability to correct it. If one never challenges anything taken on faith, one will never know the truth.

You are right that what she did was wrong.
I agree that what she did was wrong.
Most people will agree that what she did was wrong.

But most people will never know 'why', other than by taking it on faith.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

But most people will never know 'why', other than by taking it on faith.

I got ya, and that makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess I was under the assumption that like Dreamblade, you agreed that she did NOTHING wrong. That seems to be Dreamblade's stance. That horny young males look for sex, look to have fun and therefore nothing was "wrong" here. Which clearly, I disagree with.

 

[Trump]

I got ya, and that makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess I was under the assumption that like Dreamblade, you agreed that she did NOTHING wrong. That seems to be Dreamblade's stance. That horny young males look for sex, look to have fun and therefore nothing was "wrong" here. Which clearly, I disagree with.

It's hard to argue she did nothing wrong because of the alcohol but do you really believe these young men of 17 were in anyway damaged by this incident at all? If anything this was a case of confidence building but I know I'm guilty of infusing my personal bias and fantasy into this. I would have been the happiest 17 year old kid on the block if a sexy 20 or 30 or even a Mrs. Robinson had taken advantage of me!:biggrin2:

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

It's hard to argue she did nothing wrong because of the alcohol but do you really believe these young men of 17 were in anyway damaged by this incident at all? If anything this was a case of confidence building but I know I'm guilty of infusing my personal bias and fantasy into this. I would have been the happiest 17 year old kid on the block if a sexy 20 or 30 or even a Mrs. Robinson had taken advantage of me!:biggrin2:

I can not say personally because I am not involved in the case but I whole heartedly believe that yes indeed there is damage that can and probably has been done.

She is in a position of power/authority/trust. I know grown men now that have traced back current issues to their sexual assault as a minor with an older women. At the time, like you, they thought it was great. Not realizing the emotional damage it actually caused. Those traumas then manifested and created some of the issues they have today. Trust issues is huge. These affect work relations, personal relations. I have seen men with unhealthy views of women based on their past sexual abuse that has caused major problems for them their whole life. That seems damaging to me.

For some reason some people see only the sex, without realizing the power and control accept of such cases. The emotional damaged that often does not arise until years later. For the men I know, they would tell you that indeed damage can and has been done. Not being a victim of sexual assault, I don't think that many of you can understand. As you said, the bias is therefore you. The real damage is there for them.

This has been discussed on other boards too and some men have been brave enough to show the scars they bare from it as well. So to me, having been a victim myself, can see the trauma these men suffered. I believe them, I support them and I will voice my opinion of disagreement with cases like this all the time, if I can. I think knowledge is key. While I can not comment on this case personally, I will say again that I believe very real damage is done when minor males are sexually assaulted in cases similar to this.

 

[dreamblade]

I got ya, and that makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess I was under the assumption that like Dreamblade, you agreed that she did NOTHING wrong. That seems to be Dreamblade's stance. That horny young males look for sex, look to have fun and therefore nothing was "wrong" here. Which clearly, I disagree with.

It really is not. A1 explained it better than I did, I guess. I just object the automatic assumption that this is an SA case, based on the age of those involved. We only have the article to go by, which presents a little fact, and a huge bias, so we will not know if there was harm done or not. By my refusal to immediately assume that this isn't an SA case, you interpreted that I don't see anything wrong with this, or that I'm saying there was no SA. That is not the case. I'm saying I don't know. My point was that a 17 year old is quite likely capable of making decisions regarding sex and alcohol, unlike an 11 year old, despite both being considered minors.

It also has nothing to do with the gender of those involved. I've seen 16 year old girls get into clubs and going home with guys older than they, only to do the same the following weekend. I also object to the excuse of alcohol being used to voluntairily impair judgement. It's a tired trope. Another assumption by older people who are hellbent on "protecting the children"

The teacher/student angle, as I said before, is a different ethical dilemma. It's unethical to use one's position of power to coerce someone into bed, regardless of age. If that's what happened here (another unknown) then she should lose her job. But to be branded a sexual predator for the rest of her life? How much dumb shit did you do at 23?

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

It really is not. A1 explained it better than I did, I guess. I just object the automatic assumption that this is an SA case, based on the age of those involved.

Except it is not JUST age as pointed out. There are 3 areas to this that need to be addressed. You seem to simply want to pick and choose so it works for your opinion on the matter.

We only have the article to go by, which presents a little fact, and a huge bias - where is the bias???? Specifically in the article if you don't mind please. Seems that the facts that were available is what was presented. Is it the facts that make the case look bad for her that you see it as bias??

, so we will not know if there was harm done or not.

It seems to be that the person needs to be a seedy evil mastermind, with the sole purpose and intent of causing damage for you to see that damage can be caused regardless of intent. Just because you can/will not see "damage"? Doesn't matter that I know you have read others on the red board express their very real trauma. Doesn't matter that I have said I know men in my real life that have been traumatized by similar situations. Until you see it in each individual case, it is not damage and therefore can't be sexual assault?? Thankfully others are not so quick to make that keep of judgement on other victims.


By my refusal to immediately assume that this isn't an SA case, you interpreted that I don't see anything wrong with this, or that I'm saying there was no SA. That is not the case. I'm saying I don't know.

I am sorry but what conclusion should I come to when you say you do not believe/"know" it to be sexual assault??? Either it is or it is not. Forget the fact that the law has made it sexual assault, I have pointed out the 3 reasons why I believe it to be a sexual assault. Yet you try justify every point to make it appear it is not. Which is why I say to agree to disagree. Also why my opinion is it does not matter what you try to say, it appears to me - you are all for this because young men are horny and want it. Just like has been said about women in short skirts.


My point was that a 17 year old is quite likely capable of making decisions regarding sex and alcohol, unlike an 11 year old, despite both being considered minors.

While I agree that a 17 yr old has more knowledge and experience that can lead to better discussion making about sex and alcohol in comparison to an 11 yr old, that does not mean that at 17 is fully capable of making the best choice yet either. So that doesn't mean anything in a case like this. Sorry.

It also has nothing to do with the gender of those involved. I've seen 16 year old girls get into clubs and going home with guys older than they, only to do the same the following weekend. I also object to the excuse of alcohol being used to voluntairily impair judgement. It's a tired trope. Another assumption by older people who are hellbent on "protecting the children"

Really? Because I said that only intoxicated sex among children is wrong. Not that alcohol impairs judgement for everyone and no one should be having sex while impaired. At any age.

The teacher/student angle, as I said before, is a different ethical dilemma. It's unethical to use one's position of power to coerce someone into bed, regardless of age. If that's what happened here (another unknown) then she should lose her job.

Her position of authority does not have to used in a black and white form of coercion. That is the point. Any position of power has an unfair balance in the dynamic of the relationship. Look at patient/doctor. Both adults and yet still wrong should they engage in sex. Which is why it is seen as a no-no. The coercion is there simply based on the power dynamic of the relationship. I don't see how this is so easily dismissed.


But to be branded a sexual predator for the rest of her life? Yes, if she is found guilty, then she is branded. That is the punishment. Don't want that, then don't do it. You act like she did not have a choice in this either. When you hobby, you know the risks right? You make the choice you make knowing those risks. So did she. If your picture and name ended up in the paper because of a police sting, that is the risk you take as well. Is it only an exceptable risk until you get caught, then you want to scream unfair?


How much dumb shit did you do at 23?

As for how much dumb shit did I do at 23. Not much as I was already a parent and much more mature for my age that time. I can say that I have had many boys who wanted to the older women thing with me and I declined each time. My reasons are for the same posted here. Sorry but I have seen strong grown men break down into a ball at my feet, totally emotionally overwhelmed, hurt, scared, guilty, shamed, on hands and knees, at their most vulnerable because Mrs. Robinson had her way with them and it forever changed their lives. They did not realize that impact until years later.

I guess it might be acceptable to you to wait until that day comes for these boys so that it is proof enough of the damage done, but I do not require that. If that makes me some bleeding heart, "for the love of the children" moralist for the sake of looking good, I can accept that. I would rather be safe then sorry.

Now again on this I will agree to disagree, but I honestly do not want to continue on with debating it with you. Having the real world experience that I do, I find your ignorance on the subject leads to comments that I actual find offensive. I am here to enjoy myself not get upset at the differing opinion of someone on the internet because simply because he lacks the knowledge to fully comprehend what he says and its affect on people. Not to insult you, just my opinion. I don't think you are meaning to be offensive or belittling of those who have been sexually assaulted, but it is just the way it is coming across to me and therefore I want no more part in it.

 

[dreamblade]

As for how much dumb shit did I do at 23. Not much as I was already a parent and much more mature for my age that time. I can say that I have had many boys who wanted to the older women thing with me and I declined each time. My reasons are for the same posted here. Sorry but I have seen strong grown men break down into a ball at my feet, totally emotionally overwhelmed, hurt, scared, guilty, shamed, on hands and knees, at their most vulnerable because Mrs. Robinson had her way with them and it forever changed their lives. They did not realize that impact until years later.

I guess it might be acceptable to you to wait until that day comes for these boys so that it is proof enough of the damage done, but I do not require that. If that makes me some bleeding heart, "for the love of the children" moralist for the sake of looking good, I can accept that. I would rather be safe then sorry.

Now again on this I will agree to disagree, but I honestly do not want to continue on with debating it with you. Having the real world experience that I do, I find your ignorance on the subject leads to comments that I actual find offensive. I am here to enjoy myself not get upset at the differing opinion of someone on the internet because simply because he lacks the knowledge to fully comprehend what he says and its affect on people. Not to insult you, just my opinion. I don't think you are meaning to be offensive or belittling of those who have been sexually assaulted, but it is just the way it is coming across to me and therefore I want no more part in it.

I'm more than willing to let the argument go, and was going to after the first page in this thread. But phrases like this: Having the real world experience that I do, I find your ignorance on the subject leads to comments that I actual find offensive.


You effectively put your anecdotal references over mine. That kind of passive-agressive language just means that you're looking bait me, not to end the argument. Male SA is tremendously under-reported, you're not teaching me anything new. It's terrible, especially when you're faced with the assigned gender roles versus the total powerlessness of the situation, the social stygma, the destruction of self-image, self-worth. Hey! It's kinda like Male on female SA just without as much recourse and acceptance! Your assumption of my ignorance, just because my experience as a male in that situation is different than that of your friends/clients, is once again phrased in a way that was frankly insulting. And you are the one offended?

Automatic assumption of harm, exploitation, sexual assault, just because you "would rather be safe then sorry." Where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, prohibitionist arguments against decriminalizing sex work. The article gives no voice to the boys, so we don't know. Your clients' experience is not theirs.

I'm now going to completely step away from this discussion. As you claim, I'd rather enjoy my day than to be embroiled in an argument with someone on the internet. I, at least, don't invalidate your experiences while doing so.

 

[Leo]

This is to intellectual for me but please carry on. Both sides have good points.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

I'm more than willing to let the argument go, and was going to after the first page in this thread. But phrases like this: Having the real world experience that I do, I find your ignorance on the subject leads to comments that I actual find offensive.

Because I made that comment when you stopped posting after the first page right. Or was what in my attempt at my last post to you? Check the time time before you play that you "were going to" do anything. Thanks

You effectively put your anecdotal references over mine. That kind of passive-agressive language just means that you're looking bait me, not to end the argument.

Wrong. It is not passive aggressive. It is honest. I find you to be lacking knowledge of being sexual assaulted and because of that I think you are making comments about things like "damages" in an diminished capacity to those who have or will suffer it. Am I wrong on this? Have you been a victim of sexual assault?


Male SA is tremendously under-reported, you're not teaching me anything new. It's terrible, especially when you're faced with the assigned gender roles versus the total powerlessness of the situation, the social stygma, the destruction of self-image, self-worth. Hey! It's kinda like Male on female SA just without as much recourse and acceptance! Your assumption of my ignorance, just because my experience as a male in that situation is different than that of your friends/clients, is once again phrased in a way that was frankly insulting. And you are the one offended?

Yes I am the one offended , and I did say that I was not meaning to insult in anyway. It does not mean my points are valid and yours or not. Just like because you had no problem fucking older women, that means that other boys were not "damaged" because it happened to them which is one of your main points. Mommy and daddy gave me booze, I had sex with older women and I am okay, so it has to be the same for all other boys too. That is insulting. That is what you did right from the beginning. Regardless of intent. That is one message that was clear to me and that was insulting as well.

Automatic assumption of harm, exploitation, sexual assault, just because you "would rather be safe then sorry." Where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, prohibitionist arguments against decriminalizing sex work. The article gives no voice to the boys, so we don't know. Your clients' experience is not theirs.

And of course sexual assault and sex work are so closely related. Like really? Do you need to feel so empowered and so "right" that you would compare these two and again not even think that is offensive. Next you should compare the gays to pedos because hey, both say it is biological.

I'm now going to completely step away from this discussion. As you claim, I'd rather enjoy my day than to be embroiled in an argument with someone on the internet. I, at least, don't invalidate your experiences while doing so.

I doubt your done. However, I never invalidated your experiences. You have invalidated the trauma that is sexual assault in more ways then one AND because of that I am trying to not continue on with you. because I personally feel as you continue to discuss this, I am getting offended by your comments that I attribute you being ignorant of all the "damage" you seems to need to see this as an assault. That is my personal opinion. You can have yours and we can agree to disagree or I thought we could.

You keep going so clearly that is not possible and I will have to refrain from your future post in this thread. I didn't want to continue to get offended by ignorant comments on a topic that hits close to home. In reality, I was cutting you some slack but hey, see whatever the fuck you want. I don't give a shit anymore.

 

[thesun]

As for how much dumb shit did I do at 23. Not much as I was already a parent and much more mature for my age that time. I can say that I have had many boys who wanted to the older women thing with me and I declined each time. My reasons are for the same posted here. Sorry but I have seen strong grown men break down into a ball at my feet, totally emotionally overwhelmed, hurt, scared, guilty, shamed, on hands and knees, at their most vulnerable because Mrs. Robinson had her way with them and it forever changed their lives. They did not realize that impact until years later.

I guess it might be acceptable to you to wait until that day comes for these boys so that it is proof enough of the damage done, but I do not require that. If that makes me some bleeding heart, "for the love of the children" moralist for the sake of looking good, I can accept that. I would rather be safe then sorry.

Now again on this I will agree to disagree, but I honestly do not want to continue on with debating it with you. Having the real world experience that I do, I find your ignorance on the subject leads to comments that I actual find offensive. I am here to enjoy myself not get upset at the differing opinion of someone on the internet because simply because he lacks the knowledge to fully comprehend what he says and its affect on people. Not to insult you, just my opinion. I don't think you are meaning to be offensive or belittling of those who have been sexually assaulted, but it is just the way it is coming across to me and therefore I want no more part in it.

Hmmmmmm

 

[thesun]

I doubt your done. However, I never invalidated your experiences. You have invalidated the trauma that is sexual assault in more ways then one AND because of that I am trying to not continue on with you. because I personally feel as you continue to discuss this, I am getting offended by your comments that I attribute you being ignorant of all the "damage" you seems to need to see this as an assault. That is my personal opinion. You can have yours and we can agree to disagree or I thought we could.

You keep going so clearly that is not possible and I will have to refrain from your future post in this thread. I didn't want to continue to get offended by ignorant comments on a topic that hits close to home. In reality, I was cutting you some slack but hey, see whatever the fuck you want. I don't give a shit anymore.

raying::don'twantto-see:/

 

[Sly]

This is what I would say to her.

 

[Oceanus]

This is what I would say to her.

Banned.

 

[Oceanus]

raying::don'twantto-see:/

Warning.