Reply to Anyone following Raskin's bill on teacher-student relationships?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Anyone following Raskin's bill on teacher-student relationships? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]http://www.wtop.com/41/3564472/Bill-seeks-to-close-sexual-abuse-loophole

Hard to get my head around this.

Why is there need for compromise?  Are there lawmakers insisting that at least someone should be able to prey upon their students age 16+...if not older part-time teachers and coaches then at least younger ones?

Who are the victims?  Probably mainly girls.  Is this a necessary compromise because there are lawmakers who think someone in an authority relationship with girls should have the right to objectify them and engage in sexual relationships with them...

If this is the only way to address one major problem, sexual predation by men more than 7 years older than their students, then maybe the compromise is necessary.  But why?  Can anyone shed some light?  Crazy world we live in.

Here's the gazette story on this: http://www.gazette.net/article/20140219/NEWS/140219174/1124/montgomery-state-lawmakers-want-coaches-subject-to-sex-abuse-law&template=gazette

[/quote]

I was shocked to hear a rep from the sexual assault coalition on NPR this morning promoting this compromise.  What I really don't understand is this -- who are the legislators who are demanding this "compromise"?  Jamie Rubin said (in response to a senator colleague who asked why the gap was set at 7 years and advocated for a smaller gap) some, IMO, very inflammatory things in the hearing not this bill, implying that relationships between 16 year olds and 23 year olds are OK.   I think the quote from him was something like "you don't want to draw it so broadly that you criminalize something that people recognize as basically innocent."  Then going on to describe these as "Romeo and Juliet" situations.  Rubin is promoting the 7 year gap as a "compromise" with unnamed colleagues who a refusing to push this bill which will include part-time employees (previously not covered in the law) because it would criminalize these "basically innocent relationships" which are "romeo and juliet" situations.  The example given was a kid who goes to high school, goes away to college and comes back as a 22+ year old to volunteer part-time as a basketball coach and has sex with a 16 year old whom he meets at school.

IMO, as a parent, I don't want the state to sanction 16 year olds having sex with adults who are 7 years older.  (Whether the younger person is a boy or girl.)  I don't view a 23 y.o. who approaches my 16 y.o. daughter to develop a sexual relationship as a "Romeo."  I see him/her as a predator who is relying on his position of authority and status as a "cool" older man (or woman) to encourage my child to do something that isn't really very emotionally healthy.

I say this as a woman who had a consensual relationship in college with someone who was 8 years older.  But, I was over 18.  Even then, in retrospect, I realize it wasn't a very healthy relationship for me due to the age/power differential.  40/47 is much different than 16/23.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics