Clarkson hockey players face sex charges

[Jerseygirl]

[quote 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![/quote]

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.

[KeithK]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.]

[Jerseygirl]

[quote KeithK][quote 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.[/quote]
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.][/quote]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote Jerseygirl][quote KeithK][quote 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.[/quote]
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.][/quote]

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.[/quote]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.

[Robb]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[KeithK]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote KeithK][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]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.

[KeithK]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[KeithK]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote KeithK][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]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.

[Jerseygirl]

[quote KeithK] [quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.

[Robb]

[quote KeithK][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.

[Jerseygirl]

[quote Robb][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.

[KeithK]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[WillCMJr]

[quote Robb]  If these guys had been 17 (so that it was legal)...[/quote]

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.....