"a number of the cases involving priests seem to have been "consensual" except that the youth involved was not legally capable of consent."
I would argue that, rather than giving willing consent, the boys were overawed by the priest's authority.
"If I was touched inappropriately when I was 16, and need millions to recover, whether the touch-er was 17 or 22 or 30 is not *practically* relevant, although it's legally relevant."
Okay, now this is where I get confused.
Why would inappropriate touching by a 17 year old mess up a 16 year old girl so badly -- unless it was a terrifying, quasi-rape experience with danger of violence?
I was in a lot of fights as a teenager, and it didn't send me to the mental ward.
"The bigger point is that the genuine cases of "abuse," as any reasonable person would understand it, by priests, are easily lost amid cases of "he tried a grope, now give me money," especially when the media wishes to exaggerate "abuse" and conceal "pretty ordinary behavior of homosexuals."
Can't argue with that. I had a music teacher make a pass at me when I was in high school by putting his hand on my thigh. I declined, gaffed it off, and moved on. Never occured to me to sue, nor have I ever lost a moments peace of mind over it.
It was creepy and repulsive, yeah, but not something to eat a gun over.
That's what I meant. I think there are people looking for money over incidents that just aren't any big deal. There probably aren't many people who have not, at some point, had to issue a very strong BUZZ OFF, perhaps with OR I'M CALLING SECURITY added. It's just one of of the annoyances of life.
Yeah--same-o type of incidents with me.
Just roll on forward. My wife will testify that the incidents did not "make me" like little boys...