Hmmm...in the "olden" days, "inappropriate...physical...contact" between a high school coach and a student = sexual abuse.
In Utah, they apparently do things differently there: From the article: The Deseret News reported Friday that no charges would be filed, and Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill made official his FINAL decision Monday not to prosecute.
In fact, it sounds like Salt Lake County's D.A. wants to redefine alleged school personnel-student contact so that it becomes "open season" if the student has had their 18th birthday...note this extremely disturbing quote:
From the article: Gill...also confirmed that the female student with whom Lyman allegedly had an inappropriate relationship was 18 years old, a legal adult. "It really becomes issues of the type of contact, the nature of contact (and) the elements of an offense," Gill said. "If somebody is under 18, consent issues become irrelevant because you're under 18. Over 18, it alters the relationship, and it also changes the elements of the offense."
And here I always thought there was something in the criminal code about abusing a "position of trust" on high school campuses. (Silly me)
PROVO Police arrested an LDS seminary principal Thursday after they say he spent several months grooming a 16-year-old student for a sexual relationship...Police discovered hundreds of text messages, several of which were sexually explicit and included references to genitalia. Police are in the process of obtaining a warrant to gather the exact content of the messages, said Utah County Sheriff's Sgt. Matt Higley of the Utah Valley Special Victims Task Force. Higley said the acts were CONSENSUAL.
Context here is that Lds high school students have "seminary" class before their high school classes...But what was a Utah Valley Special Victims Task Force rep doing saying that what a 16-year-old high school girl did with a 37 yo was "consensual?"
Source: LDS seminary principal is arrested in sexual abuse [July 9, 2011]
Tecnically legal but its stillaninappropriate relationship.
I imagin its kind of creepy for the 16 and 17 y/o’s around them. As well as the other mature aldult faculty.
She’s 18. Not a crime.
Fire him and be done with it.
Well I may get blasted for this, but assuming she was 18 when the relationship started, I see no just cause for criminal charges. It may be a bit slimy, but men are told repeatedly that the age of consent is 18. Are we really prepared to label this guy a statutory rapist when it appears that he followed the rule?
Secondly, how long does the government need to make decisions for a young woman? All indicators are that this was consentual, and as an adult, she can decide when, and with whom. Age 18 seems appropriate to me.
If the relationship violated school policy, then I assume the school (employer) will handle the situation accordingly. Lose his job...fine. Criminal prosecution and labeled a sexual deviate? No way.
If this had been a 37 year old female teacher and 18 year old boy, we would be seeing "TTIWWP" and "Why didn't my high school teachers look like that?", etc.....
Yes, silly you - why would you even think such a thing? That may fall under a "moral turpitude" clause in the school district's policy, but its certainly not a crime to sleep with another person of legal age.
Is that how Billy Boy got away with it with Monica? Over the age of consent so they chinged the whole position-of-power aspect of this? The war on women continues and there’s a RAT at the helm.
18 is legal. For a teacher to take advantage of a love-struck student is wrong, stupid, undesirable and immoral, but not criminal.
For those of low/no morality, 15 will still get you 20; 18 is all good.