Clarkson hockey players face sex charges

[www.cnycentral.com]

I initially read that as "Clarkson hockey players face sex changes" and wondered how that would work.

judy
I initially read that as "Clarkson hockey players face sex changes" and wondered how that would work.

I don't think they're THAT desperate to even the gender ratio up there.

To be fair, the charges are sexual contact with a minor and both are just recruits themselves (18yrs old). It has always bothered me that there's some magical instant of maturity that comes when you turn 18 that suddenly makes it "ok" to have sex. I'll assume the best in this case, consensual among all parties and maybe she was 17 or something. On the grand scale of "Sex charges", that elicits no more than a yawn from me. Considering that the charges are only for "contact" and I'm fairly sure I'm right.

Of course, that probably won't stop the "haha... clarkson..." jokes which may or may not get a rise out of other frequent posters and this thread may or may not spiral into yet another flame war.

God, the season can't start soon enough.

From the information in the article my best guess is that this is some sort of technical violation of the age of consent rules and not a real crime. It could be a case of some unwanted sexual attention but there's no way to know from what's been written. Regardless, if the charges are only misdemeanors you have to think that there isn't much to the story. Hopefully the kids don't have their college hockey careers ruined over something insignificant. (Obviously there may be more to the story but...)

On the other hand, if they do end up playing for the knights it's fair game for Lynah.

Knew this would find its way here eventually.

Hopefully it is nothing major, and they can have successful college hockey careers.

nr53
To be fair, the charges are sexual contact with a minor and both are just recruits themselves (18yrs old). It has always bothered me that there's some magical instant of maturity that comes when you turn 18 that suddenly makes it "ok" to have sex. I'll assume the best in this case, consensual among all parties and maybe she was 17 or something.

I'm not sure what the law is in New York but IIRC most states write the law so that there has to be a gap of at least three years between the parties before it becomes statutory rape to avoid cases where a legal relationship between 17-year-olds becomes illegal on someone's (read: the guy's) 18th birthday. Not all states, mind you, and some states consider underage sex illegal on both parties because laws are often draconian (read: retarded).

ugarte

nr53
To be fair, the charges are sexual contact with a minor and both are just recruits themselves (18yrs old). It has always bothered me that there's some magical instant of maturity that comes when you turn 18 that suddenly makes it "ok" to have sex. I'll assume the best in this case, consensual among all parties and maybe she was 17 or something.

I'm not sure what the law is in New York but IIRC most states write the law so that there has to be a gap of at least three years between the parties before it becomes statutory rape to avoid cases where a legal relationship between 17-year-olds becomes illegal on someone's (read: the guy's) 18th birthday. Not all states, mind you, and some states consider underage sex illegal on both parties because laws are often draconian (read: retarded).

According to Wikipedia (should be fairly accurate for this kind of subject) the age of consent in NYS is fixed at 17. The severity of the offense varies with the age of the parties. It can be a misdemeanor or felony.

However, the charges cited in the linked article (sexual misconduct) don't match the terms listed in the wiki so I can't draw any firm conclusions.

An '11 recruit is also allegedly involved [www.watertowndailytimes.com]

What I find unusual is that this there are several hockey players involved. This does not sound like the standard case of high school romance.

KenP
What I find unusual is that this there are several hockey players involved. This does not sound like the standard case of high school romance.

It's impossible to tell what's going on due to the shoddy reporting. The lead paragraph mentions "without her consent" but then the charges just seem to be "sexual misconduct" which presumably could be something as trivial as their encouraging her to flash them at a party. Since she's a minor, I'm guessing the full details will never be published.

KenP
What I find unusual is that this there are several hockey players involved. This does not sound like the standard case of high school romance.

It does sound like the standard case of high school party: inexperience + hormones + alcohol = predictable problems.

Trotsky

KenP
What I find unusual is that this there are several hockey players involved. This does not sound like the standard case of high school romance.

It does sound like the standard case of high school party: inexperience + hormones + alcohol = predictable problems.

It took place at a summer hockey camp at Clarkson [www.wwnytv.com].

ursusminor

Trotsky

KenP
What I find unusual is that this there are several hockey players involved. This does not sound like the standard case of high school romance.

It does sound like the standard case of high school party: inexperience + hormones + alcohol = predictable problems.

It took place at a summer hockey camp at Clarkson [www.wwnytv.com].

"This one time, at hockey camp..."

According to the article, they were charged with sexual misconduct. According to the New York Penal Code, this means:

§ 130.20 Sexual misconduct.
A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent; or
2. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with another person without such person's consent; or
3. He or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human body.
Sexual misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.

Contrast this with:

§ 130.25 Rape in the third degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;
2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or
3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.
Rape in the third degree is a class E felony.

(I've changed the color of subsections that would seem to be irrelevant.)

are you kidding? these guys got what was coming to them. as a girl here at clarkson i can tell you it happens more than you think. our hockey players are rapists on ice. i hope their four years of getting free education, wasting the schools money, getting unfair treatment from teachers and the administration is entirely ruined. just because you can ice skate doesnt mean you have the right to rape someone. lets think about this here, what are three 18 to 19 year old boys doing spending time with a 16 year old girl? what are the chances she just decided to have sex with all three? thank god she went to the police, because here on campus those players get away with murder, or rape rather. these boys are allowed to drink ON CAMPUS, throw parties, get girls drunk to the point they can no longer stand, and then play this cute little game where they have sex with her, then switch out with another hockey player. making our school proud. so please dont defend these boys, because they are an embarrassment to the rest of the students here at clarkson.

i have already stated this, but you seem to share the same opinion as other people on here who dont go to clarkson. are you kidding? these guys got what was coming to them. as a girl here at clarkson i can tell you it happens more than you think. our hockey players are rapists on ice. i hope their four years of getting free education, wasting the schools money, getting unfair treatment from teachers and the administration is entirely ruined. just because you can ice skate doesnt mean you have the right to rape someone. lets think about this here, what are three 18 to 19 year old boys doing spending time with a 16 year old girl? what are the chances she just decided to have sex with all three? thank god she went to the police, because here on campus those players get away with murder, or rape rather. these boys are allowed to drink ON CAMPUS, throw parties, get girls drunk to the point they can no longer stand, and then play this cute little game where they have sex with her, then switch out with another hockey player. making our school proud. so please dont defend these boys, because they are an embarrassment to the rest of the students here at clarkson.

Josh '99
3. He or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human body.

A.k.a. the Drunk Cheesehead codicil.

clarksongirl
i have already stated this, but you seem to share the same opinion as other people on here who dont go to clarkson. are you kidding? these guys got what was coming to them. as a girl here at clarkson i can tell you it happens more than you think. our hockey players are rapists on ice. i hope their four years of getting free education, wasting the schools money, getting unfair treatment from teachers and the administration is entirely ruined. just because you can ice skate doesnt mean you have the right to rape someone. lets think about this here, what are three 18 to 19 year old boys doing spending time with a 16 year old girl? what are the chances she just decided to have sex with all three? thank god she went to the police, because here on campus those players get away with murder, or rape rather. these boys are allowed to drink ON CAMPUS, throw parties, get girls drunk to the point they can no longer stand, and then play this cute little game where they have sex with her, then switch out with another hockey player. making our school proud. so please dont defend these boys, because they are an embarrassment to the rest of the students here at clarkson.

I don't disagree with any of what you said, however I know that when people are between the ages of (approximately) 15-22 make dumb decisions and don't deserve to have there lives ruined because of they had a lapse of judgment.

I did say that I hope that this is nothing major, but IF it is they deserve to be punished however the law sees fits and then suspended from the hockey team for a season.

Now I am not trying to start something, but at some point girls need to say "No I don't want another beer" or just leave the party. I have never seen anyone held against their will at a party and forced to drink more, not at a fraternity, and not at a party hosted by the hockey players.

Dpperk29
Now I am not trying to start something, but at some point girls need to say "No I don't want another beer" or just leave the party. I have never seen anyone held against their will at a party and forced to drink more, not at a fraternity, and not at a party hosted by the hockey players.

I have two teenage daughters so obviously I am VERY biased. The problem with your statement is it leaves open the door for interpretations that I'm sure you don't intend: atavistic attitudes that it's the girl's fault, boys will be boys, etc.

You should be able to get as drunk as you want at a party and not be physically harmed. It's stupid and irresponsible behavior, but drinking is hardly a rarity and all boys are aware of the unwritten rules about what you do and do not do when a girl no longer seems to be making good decisions.

thank you! just because a girl is drinking does not mean that she is at fault for sexual assault. everyone on this board who is saying that they think its a small situation that got blown out of proportion would never say that if they had a daughter up at clarkson. this is not the first time something like this has happened here, with the hockey team's attitude towards women it actually happens far too often. i hope that this girl is not called a liar, and the case ignored. this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, and just because these players are local celebrities does not mean they are above the law.

clarksongirl
everyone on this board who is saying that they think its a small situation that got blown out of proportion would never say that if they had a daughter up at clarkson.

I think if you re-read this thread you'll see that no one here said that.

There were some people who were trying to infer, based on the charges, that it --might-- not have been as major as, say, felonious rape. That's very different from saying "they think it's a small situation."

It sounds like you have more knowledge of what may have gone on than is being reported. Just understand, please, that others here don't have that information.

clarksongirl
thank you! just because a girl is drinking does not mean that she is at fault for sexual assault. everyone on this board who is saying that they think its a small situation that got blown out of proportion would never say that if they had a daughter up at clarkson. this is not the first time something like this has happened here, with the hockey team's attitude towards women it actually happens far too often. i hope that this girl is not called a liar, and the case ignored. this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, and just because these players are local celebrities does not mean they are above the law.

There are plenty of cases where sexual activity between teenagers has been blown out of proportion and treated as crimes. So my first reaction to any story of this sort is to wonder whether it fits this pattern. Without a lot of information to go on (there isn't a lot in the various articles linked here) I'm hesitant to condemn the hockey players. Clarkson hockey players as a group may be a bunch of misogynists for all I know but that in itself isn't proof that a crime was committed.

KeithK

clarksongirl
thank you! just because a girl is drinking does not mean that she is at fault for sexual assault. everyone on this board who is saying that they think its a small situation that got blown out of proportion would never say that if they had a daughter up at clarkson. this is not the first time something like this has happened here, with the hockey team's attitude towards women it actually happens far too often. i hope that this girl is not called a liar, and the case ignored. this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, and just because these players are local celebrities does not mean they are above the law.

There are plenty of cases where sexual activity between teenagers has been blown out of proportion and treated as crimes.

Yep. Given what they were charged with, it's at least possible that this was consensual sexual activity rendered legally non-consensual by virtue of the fact that a person under 17 is deemed incapable of consenting to sexual activity. So given the information we have, I think it's prudent of us not to condemn these kids just yet. (See also: Duke lacrosse case.)

Trotsky

Dpperk29
Now I am not trying to start something, but at some point girls need to say "No I don't want another beer" or just leave the party. I have never seen anyone held against their will at a party and forced to drink more, not at a fraternity, and not at a party hosted by the hockey players.

I have two teenage daughters so obviously I am VERY biased. The problem with your statement is it leaves open the door for interpretations that I'm sure you don't intend: atavistic attitudes that it's the girl's fault, boys will be boys, etc.

You should be able to get as drunk as you want at a party and not be physically harmed. It's stupid and irresponsible behavior, but drinking is hardly a rarity and all boys are aware of the unwritten rules about what you do and do not do when a girl no longer seems to be making good decisions.

I am certainly not saying it is the girls fault.

I was merely saying that people need to be more aware of the situation that they put themselves in. Being a girl and going out to a party and getting smashed is putting yourself in a bad situation. Its kind of like speeding when you are underage with a case of beer on the back seat of Dad's car, not the brightest move.


Purely speculation, but this seems like one of the cases where a group of people all made several bad decisions. The men made the vast majority of the bad decisions, but the victim also made one bad decision, getting intoxicated to the point where you can't make decisions (I know it is her right, but just because something is your right, doesn't mean it is a good idea to exercise it, i. e. suicide).


The bottom line is that IF these charges are true, the men involved were absolutely wrong, and the girl is innocent. But it could have all been prevented had if the victim had shown better judgment.

Dpperk29
Purely speculation, but this seems like one of the cases where a group of people all made several bad decisions. The men made the vast majority of the bad decisions, but the victim also made one bad decision, getting intoxicated to the point where you can't make decisions...

But she didn't, necessarily, judging from the information at hand. She could've been stone cold sober and signed a document saying "I want to have sex with these two hockey players" and it would still be sexual misconduct, if they're 18 and she's 16, because a 16-year-old is legally incapable of having consensual sex.

And if there were evidence that there was alcohol involved, wouldn't they have been charged with possession or something along those lines as well?

Josh '99

Dpperk29
Purely speculation, but this seems like one of the cases where a group of people all made several bad decisions. The men made the vast majority of the bad decisions, but the victim also made one bad decision, getting intoxicated to the point where you can't make decisions...

But she didn't, necessarily, judging from the information at hand. She could've been stone cold sober and signed a document saying "I want to have sex with these two hockey players" and it would still be sexual misconduct, if they're 18 and she's 16, because a 16-year-old is legally incapable of having consensual sex.

And if there were evidence that there was alcohol involved, wouldn't they have been charged with possession or something along those lines as well?

I was going off the scenario clarksongirl suggested. I realize I mixed hypothetical with reality my mistake.

This is what happens when you mix homework with hockey forums, confusion ensues and things get crossed in my head.

Josh '99
And if there were evidence that there was alcohol involved, wouldn't they have been charged with possession or something along those lines as well?

I;m not sure that's true. I can make up various hypotheticals where there might not be clear evidence to bother with an alcohol related charge. Especially if the complaint was initiated by the victim the next day. I think it's probably a reasonable guess that alcoholo was involved but it can't be anything more than a guess since we just don't know.

Ok, there's a lot here to which I want to respond, and I'm not quite sure where to start. So if I start to go all over the place, forgive me. Assume "allegedly" where appropriate.

First off all, for those of you who think that the guys who perpetrated this crime, if they indeed are found guilty, shouldn't have to "have their lives ruined" by such a "minor thing." What about the victim? Does she deserve to have her life ruined by the crime? Because even if her entire life doesn't completely fall apart, chances are, she's going to be marked for something that isn't her fault (here would be a good place to add that being underage and wasted at a party, even flirting with these guys, even making out with these guys, doesn't make what happened "her fault." Did it make her more vulnerable? Sure. But she didn't put these guys in a position where it was impossible for them to not break a law. Everyone has agency over themselves, and how they choose to react to situations.)


As for what Dpperk29 said, that perhaps the situation could have been prevented by the girl not getting intoxicated, but guess what? It could have been JUST AS PREVENTED by the guys involved not being total entitled shitheads. Why is it incumbent upon women to a)not get too drunk b) make sure they have a walking buddy for those dark nights crossing the quad! c) not wear anything too revealing that might suggest she's ripe for the pickin'? When are the men going to step up and say, "he could have exercised self-control and decency, and, uh, not broken the law"? Guess what, it's not up to women to do everything conceivably possible to help men not commit sex crimes.


As for "...was merely saying that people need to be more aware of the situation that they put themselves in. Being a girl and going out to a party and getting smashed is putting yourself in a bad situation. Its kind of like speeding when you are underage with a case of beer on the back seat of Dad's car, not the brightest move." -- one of these things is legal, and one of these things is not. (I am assuming in this case that the "girl" who would actually correctly be called a "woman," in this scenario that was presented not specifically, but generally, is 21 or over. Because as I know from committing the great offense of Getting Hammered While Female, I'm still "putting myself in a bad situation" if I'm wasted at a party or bar or whatever, and that, in the minds of many, makes me partially reposnsible for what others choose to do to me. While being drunk and 16 is illegal, it doesn't make what others do to her any more her fault.). It's also not the brightest move for these dudes to go,"heyyyyy...drunk 16 year old...party on!" This last part also bears out if she gave full, stone cold sober consent (well, without the drunk qualifier). The consent law may be dumb, but it's still the law. So if this is "sexual activity that's between teenagers that got blown out of proportion" and one of the participants is 16 and the others are 18 or older, it's still a crime.


As for this: "Now I am not trying to start something, but at some point girls need to say "No I don't want another beer" or just leave the party. I have never seen anyone held against their will at a party and forced to drink more, not at a fraternity, and not at a party hosted by the hockey players." I could go on forever, and probably will. First, have you ever been drunk? And had no actual idea how drunk you are? Because by the time it becomes a good idea to turn down a beer, you're past the point where you know it. You probably haven't seen this behavior because I doubt you are a young woman that a fraternity brother/hockey player/fuhball player/etc. was trying to have sex with. Back in my glory days, I was. And let me tell you, did I see some shit:

-I HAVE had a (sober, by the way,she didn't drink) friend literally, violently, pulled by the arms by a fuhball player who wanted to sleep with her at a frat party. She and I caused enough of a scene that his bros finally showed up and convinced him that he was not being cool, dudebrah.

-Ok, so when I was at Cornell, well...let's just say I had a lot of access to the hockey team and leave it at that. So, to compare apples to apples, or Big Red to Golden Knights, consider the following:
--a player and his friend invited me out to drinks after I got done with work (it was summer). I showed up with a friend at a place that rhymes with Fundar's and they had already bought two pitchers of beer. My glass was never empty the whole night, and I remember the player quickly refilling my glass anytime it got close to empty. The guys ordered shots, we did them. By last call (after about 2 hours of drinking, maybe less), I was so wasted I could barely stand up. We went back to player's apartment. I remember him telling me his address, then asking me to repeat it back. I couldn't do it. We had sex. Now, if I couldn't repeat back something that was just said to me, how could I possibly give consent? I don't consider it rape, because I had determined at the beginning of the evening that I would sleep with the player.
--A friend of mine blacked out at a party once and woke up in a hockey player's bed to him straddling her, naked, saying, "If you're not going to fuck me, then why are you still here?" When she left, he said, "The guys are all awake in the living room. Have fun walking home."
--The guys had this little game they played where they'd leave their bedroom door open while having sex and a teammate would walk by, open the door, and pretend it was an accident. The room's occupant would then say, "oh no, don't worry about it, it's cool," then proceed to invite him in. The gist of this was to coerce the woman into a threesome. In the case where this was tried on me, I screamed, "get the f--- out!" before the door got all the way open, then got up and locked the door myself.
--They perpetuated a culture of female shame, and it was something I often felt I was fighting all by myself. If someone they slept with walked by them in the dining hall, their entire table would stare, point, whisper, etc. as if they were children. At one point when I was being subjected to this, I took a bite of pork teriyaki, chewed it, and opened my mouth at them. That stopped that. Evnetually, some (maybe most?) of them got it through their thick little skulls that I was just a woman who enjoyed having sex with Adonis-like men, and I wasn't seeking the status or approval they were attepting to deny me.
--That's the tip of the iceberg. I have more stories. My friends have more stories. And while they don't necessarily include male athletes dragging women off by the hair, they do include coercion, shame, embarrassment, and, if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

The coaches at Cornell, with some exceptions (of which Schaefer is not one), generally run a pretty tight ship with their teams. I'd love to see them have some pretty heavy-handed anti-sexual assault training, if this isn't in place already, and if it is, put something more effective into place.

Jerseygirl
--That's the tip of the iceberg. I have more stories. My friends have more stories. And while they don't necessarily include male athletes dragging women off by the hair, they do include coercion, shame, embarrassment, and, if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

I don't think any of this is untrue, but it's hardly unique to hockey players (or athletes in general) either.

Jerseygirl
First off all, for those of you who think that the guys who perpetrated this crime, if they indeed are found guilty, shouldn't have to "have their lives ruined" by such a "minor thing."

What I said early in the thread was "Hopefully the kids don't have their college hockey careers ruined over something insignificant," after stating the assumption that this was an age of consent issue. I stand by that statement. If the charges are just about age of consent then it is a minor issue, even if it's technically a crime, and I hope it doesn't ruin these kids hockey careers/lives.

From your experiences you are convinced that it was something more. You may be right. If the players forced themselves on the victim then they deserve whatever they get.

There's some grey area between the two extremes too.

Jerseygirl
if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

This has always seemed a bit fuzzy to me. At what point of drinking does the ability to give consent disappear? Clearly, an unconscious individual cannot give consent. But how drunk is too drunk? Can a drunk MAN consent to sex, or has every drunk dude who ever got some been raped?

The idea of anybody having some drinks, having "consensual" sex, and then regretting it the next morning and accusing the other of rape just seems wrong.

Josh '99

Jerseygirl
--That's the tip of the iceberg. I have more stories. My friends have more stories. And while they don't necessarily include male athletes dragging women off by the hair, they do include coercion, shame, embarrassment, and, if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

I don't think any of this is untrue, but it's hardly unique to hockey players (or athletes in general) either.

This isn't exactly a counterpoint.

KeithK

Jerseygirl
First off all, for those of you who think that the guys who perpetrated this crime, if they indeed are found guilty, shouldn't have to "have their lives ruined" by such a "minor thing."

What I said early in the thread was "Hopefully the kids don't have their college hockey careers ruined over something insignificant," after stating the assumption that this was an age of consent issue. I stand by that statement. If the charges are just about age of consent then it is a minor issue, even if it's technically a crime, and I hope it doesn't ruin these kids hockey careers/lives.

From your experiences you are convinced that it was something more. You may be right. If the players forced themselves on the victim then they deserve whatever they get.

There's some grey area between the two extremes too.

I'm not necessarily convinced it's something more than a strict age of consent issue. What disappoints me about your statement is that you default to "oh noes, teh poor menz!" and don't acknowledge that if this crime was perpetrated, even as a strict age of consent issue, there's negative fallout for the victim, too.* If they are convicted of this crime (even if it's a stupid law, which I think it is), they deserve whatever they get. They broke a law. Shouldn't have done it. Should have thought about that before they potentially put their hockey careers on the line.

*Remember that women are constantly judged, shamed, and valued or disvalued because of their sexuality. She doesn't just get to walk away from this.

DisplacedCornellian

Jerseygirl
if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

This has always seemed a bit fuzzy to me. At what point of drinking does the ability to give consent disappear? Clearly, an unconscious individual cannot give consent. But how drunk is too drunk? Can a drunk MAN consent to sex, or has every drunk dude who ever got some been raped?

The idea of anybody having some drinks, having "consensual" sex, and then regretting it the next morning and accusing the other of rape just seems wrong.

I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent.

It's definitely fuzzy. What I really have a problem with is men, who may or may not be legally drunk, or who are at least measurably less drunk than their partners, having sex with (raping) women who are waaaaaaasted. Stumbling, incoherent, etc., and thinking that's ok. No one steps in and says, "Dude, not cool. Rape." I'm not naive, I don't think that this will ever stop; I don't think it's human nature to be able to stop it. What we CAN do that would be productive is destigmatize sex so the woman can leave the situation in the morning (or whenever she chooses) with her dignity intact. She's not teased, catcalled, shamed, embarrassed. Of course, that would take away the entitled douchebags' fun little game, but c'est la vie.

ugarte

Josh '99

Jerseygirl
--That's the tip of the iceberg. I have more stories. My friends have more stories. And while they don't necessarily include male athletes dragging women off by the hair, they do include coercion, shame, embarrassment, and, if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

I don't think any of this is untrue, but it's hardly unique to hockey players (or athletes in general) either.

This isn't exactly a counterpoint.

Yeah, I definitely didn't mean to limit my statement to hockey players, or male athletes. It applies to any entitled prick who thinks women owe him something by virtue of his ability to draw breath.

Jerseygirl
I'm not necessarily convinced it's something more than a strict age of consent issue. What disappoints me about your statement is that you default to "oh noes, teh poor menz!" and don't acknowledge that if this crime was perpetrated, even as a strict age of consent issue, there's negative fallout for the victim, too.* If they are convicted of this crime (even if it's a stupid law, which I think it is), they deserve whatever they get. They broke a law. Shouldn't have done it. Should have thought about that before they potentially put their hockey careers on the line.

*Remember that women are constantly judged, shamed, and valued or disvalued because of their sexuality. She doesn't just get to walk away from this.

No. If all they are guilty of is having completely consenual sex with a 16 year old girl, then IMO they don't deserve to be punished or suffer significant consequences. It is a silly law as written. Just because it is the law does NOT make it right. One can come up with many examples of unjust laws but I won't Godwin the thread by mentioning some obvious examples.

As for the victim, if it was simply consensual sex with a 16 year old in violation of a silly law then there is no victim. Unless you also think a woman is a victim anytime she agrees to have sex with a guy who turns out to be an asshole.

KeithK
As for the victim, if it was simply consensual sex with a 16 year old in violation of a silly law then there is no victim.

Except that (using your assumption of being purely consensual) this law publicizes what is often meant to be a private act/relationship. As we're seeing in this post, it effects the reputation (at the very least) of both parties. The overage person gets "sex crime" publicity and the underage person will now appear to be "promiscuous" or "slutty" in the eyes of peers, parents, etc. when that may not be the case.

Jerseygirl
--They perpetuated a culture of female shame, and it was something I often felt I was fighting all by myself. If someone they slept with walked by them in the dining hall, their entire table would stare, point, whisper, etc. as if they were children. At one point when I was being subjected to this, I took a bite of pork teriyaki, chewed it, and opened my mouth at them. That stopped that.

Huh? I'm confused about this point. Are you saying that you stopped their childish behavior by doing something childish yourself? How does that preserve your dignity? By out-grossing them?

Otherwise, an epic post from a perspective many of us don't think about.

KeithK

Jerseygirl
I'm not necessarily convinced it's something more than a strict age of consent issue. What disappoints me about your statement is that you default to "oh noes, teh poor menz!" and don't acknowledge that if this crime was perpetrated, even as a strict age of consent issue, there's negative fallout for the victim, too.* If they are convicted of this crime (even if it's a stupid law, which I think it is), they deserve whatever they get. They broke a law. Shouldn't have done it. Should have thought about that before they potentially put their hockey careers on the line.

*Remember that women are constantly judged, shamed, and valued or disvalued because of their sexuality. She doesn't just get to walk away from this.

No. If all they are guilty of is having completely consenual sex with a 16 year old girl, then IMO they don't deserve to be punished or suffer significant consequences. It is a silly law as written. Just because it is the law does NOT make it right. One can come up with many examples of unjust laws but I won't Godwin the thread by mentioning some obvious examples.

As for the victim, if it was simply consensual sex with a 16 year old in violation of a silly law then there is no victim. Unless you also think a woman is a victim anytime she agrees to have sex with a guy who turns out to be an asshole.

We agree that it's a silly law, where we differ is that I believe its existence as a law means it should be enforced, and those who break it should be subject to consequences. If it's a simple matter of consent, it's my personal belief that these guys shouldn't be kicked off the team for ever and ever.

As for your second paragraph, I'm going to go ahead and answer as if it's not rhetorical. Here's the short answer summarizing my very complicated feelings: do I believe that a woman (or in this case, a girl) is a victim anytime she agrees to have sex with a guy who turns out to be an asshole? No. BUT, I do know that many, many assholes work very hard to try to make their sex partners feel like shit for their decision to sleep with said assholes. That is victimization. Yes, women and girls control their own emotions, but society places on us a heavy, heavy burden to feel shame about our perfectly natural desires.

RichH

Jerseygirl
--They perpetuated a culture of female shame, and it was something I often felt I was fighting all by myself. If someone they slept with walked by them in the dining hall, their entire table would stare, point, whisper, etc. as if they were children. At one point when I was being subjected to this, I took a bite of pork teriyaki, chewed it, and opened my mouth at them. That stopped that.

Huh? I'm confused about this point. Are you saying that you stopped their childish behavior by doing something childish yourself? How does that preserve your dignity? By out-grossing them?

Otherwise, an epic post from a perspective many of us don't think about.

Well, basically, that is what I'm saying. I was 19, frustrated, and didn't know what else to do. It was definitely an act of frustration, not of grace. Those came later, after I grew up a little.

And thank you.

RichH

KeithK
As for the victim, if it was simply consensual sex with a 16 year old in violation of a silly law then there is no victim.

Except that (using your assumption of being purely consensual) this law publicizes what is often meant to be a private act/relationship. As we're seeing in this post, it effects the reputation (at the very least) of both parties. The overage person gets "sex crime" publicity and the underage person will now appear to be "promiscuous" or "slutty" in the eyes of peers, parents, etc. when that may not be the case.

Sure. But I'm talking about the underlying act (consensual sex). There's no victim and really no crime. Eliminate the criminal charges and the publicity goes away.

Jerseygirl

DisplacedCornellian

Jerseygirl
if you want to get technical (a drunk woman can't consent to sex), lots o' rape.

This has always seemed a bit fuzzy to me. At what point of drinking does the ability to give consent disappear? Clearly, an unconscious individual cannot give consent. But how drunk is too drunk? Can a drunk MAN consent to sex, or has every drunk dude who ever got some been raped?

The idea of anybody having some drinks, having "consensual" sex, and then regretting it the next morning and accusing the other of rape just seems wrong.

I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent.

And this is a big point of argument here. I know I've been able to make decisions (some of them rational and socially responsible) when I've been over the legal limit to operate a vehicle. Few of them probably tip-toe the line of the law as sexual consent does, but I know I have been able to reason while legally drunk. (For the record, I've also made some poor decisions while impaired. i.e. "Hey, let's bring our beer TO the Hot Truck!"

Alcohol effects people differently. For some it impairs judgement more, for some it impairs motor skills more. But to say that there's a magical number where at .07 it's consensual, and .08 it's rape reinforces to me the fuzziness.

I don't consider it rape, because I had determined at the beginning of the evening that I would sleep with the player.

Now here's where I think you lose something on your argument. (I'm no lawyer either) This is bringing in "intent" or some sort of pre-consent. Someone hearing your story could say it was rape. "no, no...it's ok. I told myself I would sleep with him before." Well, if you were HAMMERED when he actually asked for consent, isn't that rape to someone who isn't inside your head? And couldn't that be the same situation to at least some of the "too drunk to give consent" rapes you've known about?

And what happens if the guy is just as drunk as the girl as a night goes on? There are the "one thing leads to another" things, and not all situations are simply men being predatory and lecherous. Can't women be the instigators for "too drunk sex" too?

Jerseygirl
We agree that it's a silly law, where we differ is that I believe its existence as a law means it should be enforced, and those who break it should be subject to consequences. If it's a simple matter of consent, it's my personal belief that these guys shouldn't be kicked off the team for ever and ever.

Fine. It's been said that the best way to get rid of a stupid law is to enforce it. Maybe we should strictly and ruthlessly enforce laws about underage drinking too.

Jerseygirl
As for your second paragraph, I'm going to go ahead and answer as if it's not rhetorical. Here's the short answer summarizing my very complicated feelings: do I believe that a woman (or in this case, a girl) is a victim anytime she agrees to have sex with a guy who turns out to be an asshole? No. BUT, I do know that many, many assholes work very hard to try to make their sex partners feel like shit for their decision to sleep with said assholes. That is victimization. Yes, women and girls control their own emotions, but society places on us a heavy, heavy burden to feel shame about our perfectly natural desires.

An age old problem with a simple solution. Women should spend less time on Adonis-like hockey players who turn into assholes and more on geeky hockey fans who are obviously sweet and lovable.

Jerseygirl
As for your second paragraph, I'm going to go ahead and answer as if it's not rhetorical. Here's the short answer summarizing my very complicated feelings: do I believe that a woman (or in this case, a girl) is a victim anytime she agrees to have sex with a guy who turns out to be an asshole? No. BUT, I do know that many, many assholes work very hard to try to make their sex partners feel like shit for their decision to sleep with said assholes. That is victimization. Yes, women and girls control their own emotions, but society places on us a heavy, heavy burden to feel shame about our perfectly natural desires.

An age old problem with a simple solution. Women should spend less time on Adonis-like hockey players who turn into assholes and more on geeky hockey fans who are obviously sweet and lovable. [/quote]

Ha. I KNEW this was going to be said eventually...I've had both, and the Adonis-like hockey players who turned into assholes eventually turned out to be good guys...I'm good friends with one, and another came to my rescue when I was in a bad situation in a foreign country. The geeky hockey fan I dated ended up being emotionally abusive and those are two years I won't get back. YMMV, of course.

I don't consider it rape, because I had determined at the beginning of the evening that I would sleep with the player.

Now here's where I think you lose something on your argument. (I'm no lawyer either) This is bringing in "intent" or some sort of pre-consent. Someone hearing your story could say it was rape. "no, no...it's ok. I told myself I would sleep with him before." Well, if you were HAMMERED when he actually asked for consent, isn't that rape to someone who isn't inside your head? And couldn't that be the same situation to at least some of the "too drunk to give consent" rapes you've known about?

And what happens if the guy is just as drunk as the girl as a night goes on? There are the "one thing leads to another" things, and not all situations are simply men being predatory and lecherous. Can't women be the instigators for "too drunk sex" too?[/quote]

To your first point: yeah, it is rape to someone who isn't inside my head. And legally speaking, it's defined as rape. But to me, the "victim," and the person who would or wouldn't press charges, it's not rape. And that's what matters. The "too drunk to give consent" rapes I've known about have been shrouded in ambivalence, shame and regret, and the women have said that they would not have had that sex sober. When I've talked about this stuff with the friends it happened to, we've reached a point in the conversation where they've said, "I guess that was kind of rape then." I've never come to that conclusion about my situation. I regretted sleeping with him once he started being an ass, and felt like he took advantage of me, but he would have done that whether I was drunk or sober.

No, not all situations are men being predatory and lecherous. In fact, when Trotsky, upthread, said something like, "all boys know what they are supposed to do," I think he's wrong. I think a lot of guys don't truly accept that unless you get a confirmed yes, the trouser snake stays in its cave. We have to do a much better job as a society teaching men to take women at their word. Convincing someone, or "she didn't say no," is not a way to get laid.

Yeah, sure, women can be instigators of too drunk sex. But men are much more physically capable of shutting things down if they don't consent. I'm a big, strong woman, and I'm still no match for a man who's much smaller than I am. And if a woman is instigating too drunk sex, the specter of physical violence isn't hanging over the guy's head if he doesn't consent.

And let me put this out there, before it devolves into this -- I know men can get sexually assaulted and raped, I know men get falsely accused of rape, and I hate both of these things. Neither of them negate the great, great need for us to radically change the way we look at women's sexuality, and the way we socialize our men to act.

Jerseygirl
...another came to my rescue when I was in a bad situation in a foreign country.

Methinks you're overselling America's Hat a wee bit here.

Your posts in this thread are outstanding. Organize, expand, and get published in the Sunday Times Mag.

CowbellGuy

Jerseygirl
...another came to my rescue when I was in a bad situation in a foreign country.

Methinks you're overselling America's Hat a wee bit here.

Toque. America's toque.

Jerseygirl
I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent.

I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread but this is dead wrong. "Too drunk to operate heavy machinery" is not the same as "too drunk to make decisions." It doesn't take a lot of drinking to get a BAC of .08; I'd guess that most drivers who register a .08 are surprised that they are legally drunk. That is a far cry from a woman who is semi-conscious or so far gone that she isn't capable of making decisions.

If all consent at .08 is invalid, a lot of women who agreed to subsequent dates would be shocked to find that they had been raped.

ugarte

Jerseygirl
I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent.

I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread but this is dead wrong. "Too drunk to operate heavy machinery" is not the same as "too drunk to make decisions." It doesn't take a lot of drinking to get a BAC of .08; I'd guess that most drivers who register a .08 are surprised that they are legally drunk. That is a far cry from a woman who is semi-conscious or so far gone that she isn't capable of making decisions.

If all consent at .08 is invalid, a lot of women who agreed to subsequent dates would be shocked to find that they had been raped.

So how is too drunk to legally consent defined, then? I'm genuinely curious, and please note that I never asserted I was stating a fact.

Jerseygirl

ugarte

Jerseygirl
I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent.

I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread but this is dead wrong. "Too drunk to operate heavy machinery" is not the same as "too drunk to make decisions." It doesn't take a lot of drinking to get a BAC of .08; I'd guess that most drivers who register a .08 are surprised that they are legally drunk. That is a far cry from a woman who is semi-conscious or so far gone that she isn't capable of making decisions.

If all consent at .08 is invalid, a lot of women who agreed to subsequent dates would be shocked to find that they had been raped.

So how is too drunk to legally consent defined, then? I'm genuinely curious, and please note that I never asserted I was stating a fact.

I didn't think you were stating it as a matter of law; neither was I. There isn't a bright line for when someone is too drunk to consent. It is a judgment call for the prosecuting attorney.

ugarte
I didn't think you were stating it as a matter of law; neither was I. There isn't a bright line for when someone is too drunk to consent. It is a judgment call for the prosecuting attorney.

That's an odd misspelling of "jury."

According to the Clarkson Integrator (campus newspaper) it was consenual sex with a minor and the issue stems from minors not being able to consent to sex.

[media.www.clarksonintegrator.com]

I'll go back to my original comment. If it was one player having technically consensual sex with a minor that's one thing. But in this case there were three guys, one of whom was a recruit. This sounds more like the womanizing jerseygirl described.

If I had to determine the school-scholarship penalty for this incident, based on the facts presented I'd be inclined to give a stiffer penalty. (no pun intended) Clarkson should make it clear that this type of conduct is inappropriate.

RichH
(For the record, I've also made some poor decisions while impaired. i.e. "Hey, let's bring our beer TO the Hot Truck!"

"A beefstick, officer."

At least you didn't drunkenly swear at the Ithaca Police—as a corporate entity, in their own building—like, ahem, some other person did...

Robb

ugarte
I didn't think you were stating it as a matter of law; neither was I. There isn't a bright line for when someone is too drunk to consent. It is a judgment call for the prosecuting attorney.

That's an odd misspelling of "jury."

I believe Robb is correct here; if I'm not mistaken, "too drunk to consent" is defined as "too drunk to consent" and a jury would have a lot of leeway to interpret it as they saw fit.

Josh '99
I believe Robb is correct here; if I'm not mistaken, "too drunk to consent" is defined as "too drunk to consent" and a jury would have a lot of leeway to interpret it as they saw fit.

Mostly I was being snarky - the ultimate decision is up to the jury, since that would be a question of fact, not a question of law (was she, in fact, too drunk to consent?). However, the question of whether charges would be filed rests with the prosecuter's judgement as to whether he'd be able to CONVINCE a jury that she was too drunk to consent.

Robb

Josh '99
I believe Robb is correct here; if I'm not mistaken, "too drunk to consent" is defined as "too drunk to consent" and a jury would have a lot of leeway to interpret it as they saw fit.

Mostly I was being snarky - the ultimate decision is up to the jury, since that would be a question of fact, not a question of law (was she, in fact, too drunk to consent?). However, the question of whether charges would be filed rests with the prosecuter's judgement as to whether he'd be able to CONVINCE a jury that she was too drunk to consent.

Bingo.

There has been a lot of speculation and trash talking, but based on what they were charged with. Sexual Misconduct is a lesser included charge of some other major offenses. The fact they weren't charged with these higher offenses says a lot....

-If it was forcible or substance induced it would have been Rape, Sexual Abuse or Criminal Sexual Act in the 1st degree, depending on what acts took place. These are Class B Felonies, carrying potential big prison time.

-The fact that it's Sexual Misconduct means all they can show is that something happened, but she was too young to do it, and the guys aren't yet 21.

For all those chastising the players and automatically defending the girl... The charges indicate that she was more than willing, but they were dumb-asses for not checking her age!

I can't tell you how many girls have been more than willingly double teamed by members of our local hockey team. This stuff happens!

WillCMJr
For all those chastising the players and automatically defending the girl... The charges indicate that she was more than willing, but they were dumb-asses for not checking her age!

I can't tell you how many girls have been more than willingly double teamed by members of our local hockey team. This stuff happens!

Ugh. I KNOW! Boys will be boys, and those silly sluts should just keep their legs shut and stop asking for trouble.

I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

BTW, there really wasn't a lot of "automatically defending" of the victim in this scenario. A great deal of the posts were looking for ways to blame her for being in the situation. Bottom line: the onus wasn't on her to stop the crime (however minor) from being perpetrated.

Jerseygirl
I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

By prosecuting the men involved isn't it the law who is telling the girl that she should be ashamed of her actions? She isn't being punished because she is deemed to young to be held responsible. But the message is that it's wrong to act on her perfectly natural desires.

[As always, the above assumes that it was willing and consensual.]

KeithK

Jerseygirl
I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

By prosecuting the men involved isn't it the law who is telling the girl that she should be ashamed of her actions? She isn't being punished because she is deemed to young to be held responsible. But the message is that it's wrong to act on her perfectly natural desires.

[As always, the above assumes that it was willing and consensual.]

I don't know how I feel about that, actually. I think a lot of it would come down to what the judge says at sentencing or whatever (forgive me, I don't know a lot about courtroom procedure and I'm not enough of a pedant to look it up). And as I think we've been over, you and I aren't exactly on opposite teams when it comes to the stupidity of this particular law. Also, she's not being punished because she's *not the one who committed a crime,* not because she did something against the law, but is too young to be held responsible. And I don't think the message is necessarily that it's wrong to act on her perfectly natural desires, but more that if one is to act on one's perfectly natural desires, it should be done with someone who isn't at an inherent power advantage due to their age of majority.

My feelings on this are complicated, as has been made obvious in this thread. My bottom line with regard to the particular charges is this: if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame.

Jerseygirl

KeithK

Jerseygirl
I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

By prosecuting the men involved isn't it the law who is telling the girl that she should be ashamed of her actions? She isn't being punished because she is deemed to young to be held responsible. But the message is that it's wrong to act on her perfectly natural desires.

[As always, the above assumes that it was willing and consensual.]

I don't know how I feel about that, actually. I think a lot of it would come down to what the judge says at sentencing or whatever (forgive me, I don't know a lot about courtroom procedure and I'm not enough of a pedant to look it up). And as I think we've been over, you and I aren't exactly on opposite teams when it comes to the stupidity of this particular law. Also, she's not being punished because she's *not the one who committed a crime,* not because she did something against the law, but is too young to be held responsible. And I don't think the message is necessarily that it's wrong to act on her perfectly natural desires, but more that if one is to act on one's perfectly natural desires, it should be done with someone who isn't at an inherent power advantage due to their age of majority.

My feelings on this are complicated, as has been made obvious in this thread. My bottom line with regard to the particular charges is this: if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame.

My view on this is that like many sexual offenses it comes down to power. In this case the adults have the power and the child, we seem to forget that a young teen is a child, doesn't. Therefore it's inherent upon the one in power to abstain. Much like a boss taking advantage of an employee, a teacher taking advantage of a student, or a professional with a client/patient. Even if the student,employee, client, or patient may enjoy the encounter, it's not ethical and maybe not legal. It seems to me that the public and our laws feel sex should be among equals. If you are an equal and choose to be subservient so be it, but if you are in the position of power be careful.

Jerseygirl
I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

I get this, and I totally agree.

What I don't get, though, is what prosecuting or not prosecuting the "men" in this case has to do with whether society would shame the girl. If these guys had been 17 (so that it was legal), but the story about her getting triple teamed or whatever got twittered all over Facebook, I'm guessing that "society" would still look down on her for it. Prosecuting these guys doesn't do anything to restore her dignity.

I'm *not* arguing that they shouldn't be prosecuted - they broke the law, so they should be prosecuted. I'm just questioning the link between that and society's views on female sexuality.

To sum up, I think:

1) They should be justly punished if they broke the law.
2) The New York law should be changed to include age bands, etc, to account for gray areas. But until that happens, the law is the law and that's the way it goes for now.
3) Whether 1 or 2 happens or not, I don't think society's views on female sexuality will be affected.

Jim Hyla
My view on this is that like many sexual offenses it comes down to power. In this case the adults have the power and the child, we seem to forget that a young teen is a child, doesn't. Therefore it's inherent upon the one in power to abstain. Much like a boss taking advantage of an employee, a teacher taking advantage of a student, or a professional with a client/patient. Even if the student,employee, client, or patient may enjoy the encounter, it's not ethical and maybe not legal. It seems to me that the public and our laws feel sex should be among equals. If you are an equal and choose to be subservient so be it, but if you are in the position of power be careful.

I agree that power issues are a very important part of many sexual offenses and the rationale for outlawing them. If a teacher sleeps with his student or an employer with hers we are concerned about the strong possibility of coercion that exists due to the power imbalance. But today we're talking about a 16 year old and 18 year olds, presumably students (or similar). There reallyisn't any power imbalance here, certainly nothing compared to the examples that Jim offers. Being 18 vs. 16 is just not comparable.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
My view on this is that like many sexual offenses it comes down to power. In this case the adults have the power and the child, we seem to forget that a young teen is a child, doesn't. Therefore it's inherent upon the one in power to abstain. Much like a boss taking advantage of an employee, a teacher taking advantage of a student, or a professional with a client/patient. Even if the student,employee, client, or patient may enjoy the encounter, it's not ethical and maybe not legal. It seems to me that the public and our laws feel sex should be among equals. If you are an equal and choose to be subservient so be it, but if you are in the position of power be careful.

I agree that power issues are a very important part of many sexual offenses and the rationale for outlawing them. If a teacher sleeps with his student or an employer with hers we are concerned about the strong possibility of coercion that exists due to the power imbalance. But today we're talking about a 16 year old and 18 year olds, presumably students (or similar). There reallyisn't any power imbalance here, certainly nothing compared to the examples that Jim offers. Being 18 vs. 16 is just not comparable.

The power comes not just with age, but also with position. A Clarkson hockey player has position and that gives power. Those that have power need to understand the responsibilities that come with that privilege. A sixteen year old is still considered a child in this circumstance. Power versus child is not equal.


I have a fifteen year old, who dislikes sports, so I don't think it would happen; but if she were to adore these hockey players, then I don't think it would be equal to have players take advantage of her. That's true even if she thought it would be OK. If she gets to college and wants to have sex, that is a completely different situation.

Jerseygirl
Also, she's not being punished because she's *not the one who committed a crime,* not because she did something against the law, but is too young to be held responsible. And I don't think the message is necessarily that it's wrong to act on her perfectly natural desires, but more that if one is to act on one's perfectly natural desires, it should be done with someone who isn't at an inherent power advantage due to their age of majority.

Then why is it illegal for the same 16 year old to have sex with another 16 year old? New York law says that under 17 you can't consent to sex. The only reasonable explanation in my mind is that the drafters of the law thought that sexual relations by unmarried people under 17 was wrong. Today's society may not believe that anymore as a whole but the law is still on the books. The law allows an 18 year old involved to be punished because he is considered more responsible upon reaching the magical age of majority.

For many folks modern attitudes about sexuality have changed the view of these same laws and decided that they are now focused on power issues. So maybe the "shame" factor would be completely lost for a lot of folks even if I am right that that was a big part of the original intent.

Jerseygirl
My feelings on this are complicated, as has been made obvious in this thread. My bottom line with regard to the particular charges is this: if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame.

Prosecutors should absolutely (heh) not take a black and white, zero tolerance attitude. Prosecutors have discretion for a reason. This case might have plenty of aggravating factors that we don't know about. But to take the position that any 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just because that's what the law says is silly.

Jim Hyla
The power comes not just with age, but also with position. A Clarkson hockey player has position and that gives power. Those that have power need to understand the responsibilities that come with that privilege. A sixteen year old is still considered a child in this circumstance. Power versus child is not equal.

I have a fifteen year old, who dislikes sports, so I don't think it would happen; but if she were to adore these hockey players, then I don't think it would be equal to have players take advantage of her. That's true even if she thought it would be OK. If she gets to college and wants to have sex, that is a completely different situation.

I see what you are saying Jim. But that's not really power. There is no concrete power that the player has over the girl. He can't fire her or drop her grades. Sure he can cause her social stock to fall, but (from a legal perspective) so what? Unless we want to start regulating all sorts of social interactions in college and (especially) high school.

There's often a big difference between what is wrong and what should be illegal.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
The power comes not just with age, but also with position. A Clarkson hockey player has position and that gives power. Those that have power need to understand the responsibilities that come with that privilege. A sixteen year old is still considered a child in this circumstance. Power versus child is not equal.

I have a fifteen year old, who dislikes sports, so I don't think it would happen; but if she were to adore these hockey players, then I don't think it would be equal to have players take advantage of her. That's true even if she thought it would be OK. If she gets to college and wants to have sex, that is a completely different situation.

I see what you are saying Jim. But that's not really power. There is no concrete power that the player has over the girl. He can't fire her or drop her grades. Sure he can cause her social stock to fall, but (from a legal perspective) so what? Unless we want to start regulating all sorts of social interactions in college and (especially) high school.

There's often a big difference between what is wrong and what should be illegal.

Power may not be the right word here, but I don't know what else to say. It's not just that you can fire someone, or give them a poor grade; but rather you are in a dominant position to them. Sex with a student is wrong, even if that student is not in your class. If anyone can come up with a better word than power, I'd be willing to use it.

KeithK

Jerseygirl
My feelings on this are complicated, as has been made obvious in this thread. My bottom line with regard to the particular charges is this: if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame.

Prosecutors should absolutely (heh) not take a black and white, zero tolerance attitude. Prosecutors have discretion for a reason. This case might have plenty of aggravating factors that we don't know about. But to take the position that any 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just because that's what the law says is silly.

I did not in that post say, nor do I personally feel, that an 18 year old who sleeps with a 16 year old should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, nor did I say that I feel prosecutors should take a black and white, zero-tolerance attitude. But thank you anyway for projecting your personal interpretations of what I think onto what I actually wrote there. I said that "if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame." I do not mean anything more or anything less by that than what I wrote.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
The power comes not just with age, but also with position. A Clarkson hockey player has position and that gives power. Those that have power need to understand the responsibilities that come with that privilege. A sixteen year old is still considered a child in this circumstance. Power versus child is not equal.

I have a fifteen year old, who dislikes sports, so I don't think it would happen; but if she were to adore these hockey players, then I don't think it would be equal to have players take advantage of her. That's true even if she thought it would be OK. If she gets to college and wants to have sex, that is a completely different situation.

I see what you are saying Jim. But that's not really power. There is no concrete power that the player has over the girl. He can't fire her or drop her grades. Sure he can cause her social stock to fall, but (from a legal perspective) so what? Unless we want to start regulating all sorts of social interactions in college and (especially) high school.

There's often a big difference between what is wrong and what should be illegal.

Right - and it would still be illegal according to the letter of the law for an 18 year old dweeb loser to have sex with a 16 year old prom queen. The law doesn't care about the social status of the participants. The law was written in an era when the "power" issues weren't really recognized - that's not what the law is trying to fix.

Robb

Jerseygirl
I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

I get this, and I totally agree.

What I don't get, though, is what prosecuting or not prosecuting the "men" in this case has to do with whether society would shame the girl. If these guys had been 17 (so that it was legal), but the story about her getting triple teamed or whatever got twittered all over Facebook, I'm guessing that "society" would still look down on her for it. Prosecuting these guys doesn't do anything to restore her dignity.

I'm *not* arguing that they shouldn't be prosecuted - they broke the law, so they should be prosecuted. I'm just questioning the link between that and society's views on female sexuality.

To sum up, I think:

1) They should be justly punished if they broke the law.
2) The New York law should be changed to include age bands, etc, to account for gray areas. But until that happens, the law is the law and that's the way it goes for now.
3) Whether 1 or 2 happens or not, I don't think society's views on female sexuality will be affected.

I wasn't linking society and the law here, and don't that 1 or 2 happening would affect society's views on female sexuality either.

Jerseygirl
I did not in that post say, nor do I personally feel, that an 18 year old who sleeps with a 16 year old should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, nor did I say that I feel prosecutors should take a black and white, zero-tolerance attitude. But thank you anyway for projecting your personal interpretations of what I think onto what I actually wrote there. I said that "if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame." I do not mean anything more or anything less by that than what I wrote.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post. In my defense "if a law was broken and a crime was committed, the perpetrators should be punished, and the victim should not suffer blame" sounded black and white to me. I guess I should have read "and a crime was committed" as a qualifier and not a restatement of the the first part. Again, sorry.

Robb
If these guys had been 17 (so that it was legal)...

Actually, that still wouldn't be legal and that's how screwed up NY State law is. Anyone under the age of 21 could be charged with this against someone under the age of 17. Both the guy and the girl could both be 16, and each be charged with committing Sexual Misconduct against the other.

Gotta love NY.....

Jerseygirl

WillCMJr
For all those chastising the players and automatically defending the girl... The charges indicate that she was more than willing, but they were dumb-asses for not checking her age!

I can't tell you how many girls have been more than willingly double teamed by members of our local hockey team. This stuff happens!

Ugh. I KNOW! Boys will be boys, and those silly sluts should just keep their legs shut and stop asking for trouble.

I don't give a shit how many girls have been "more than willingly double teamed" by members of our local hockey team. What I do give a shit about is how women are made to feel ashamed for participating in these consensual sex acts.

BTW, there really wasn't a lot of "automatically defending" of the victim in this scenario. A great deal of the posts were looking for ways to blame her for being in the situation. Bottom line: the onus wasn't on her to stop the crime (however minor) from being perpetrated.

I think/hope he's talking about his local Hockey team (Binghamton Senators - AHL) rather than "our" local hockey team, but maybe he wasn't...

WillCMJr

Robb
If these guys had been 17 (so that it was legal)...

Actually, that still wouldn't be legal and that's how screwed up NY State law is. Anyone under the age of 21 could be charged with this against someone under the age of 17. Both the guy and the girl could both be 16, and each be charged with committing Sexual Misconduct against the other.

Gotta love NY.....

Just to be safe on any possible vagaries of New York law, Eliot Spitzer took Amtrak out of state and got off in Washington.

billhoward

Just to be safe on any possible vagaries of New York law, Eliot Spitzer took Amtrak out of state and got off in Washington.

Thereby opening up potential Federal prosecution haha a guy can't win!

WillCMJr

billhoward

Just to be safe on any possible vagaries of New York law, Eliot Spitzer took Amtrak out of state and got off in Washington.

Thereby opening up potential Federal prosecution haha a guy can't win!

But... Amtrak was over 18...Wasn't she?

WillCMJr

billhoward

Just to be safe on any possible vagaries of New York law, Eliot Spitzer took Amtrak out of state and got off in Washington.

Thereby opening up potential Federal prosecution haha a guy can't win!

Yes, a guy certainly can't win, especially when there's such a paucity of legal ways to get off.

Jerseygirl

WillCMJr

billhoward

Just to be safe on any possible vagaries of New York law, Eliot Spitzer took Amtrak out of state and got off in Washington.

Thereby opening up potential Federal prosecution haha a guy can't win!

Yes, a guy certainly can't win, especially when there's such a paucity of legal ways to get off.

OK, I think you are getting off-topic here. Ashley Dupree was neither a minor, conceivably a minor, or a victim of sex trafficking. There is nothing in the Spitzer saga that raises any of the issues involved in the original Clarkson story. Don't let your justifiable anger at that drift along with the thread to the sillier story of a politician caught cheating on his wife.

ugarte
Ashley Dupree was neither a minor, conceivably a minor, or a victim of sex trafficking.

That's right. She's a singer.

I despise Spitzer's tactics.