Posted on 12/20/2008 8:13:53 AM PST by tom h
The so-called "coercion factor", and the perception that the male students "wanted it" from (at least the attractive) female molesters. IMHO, it's the same thing... did this predator hold a gun to these girls heads... probably not.
That’s right. Girls are often very agressive, and when rejected they can be vindictive!
It’s very difficult for any man to refuse a woman when it’s thrown in their face.
What?
It’s bush’s fault!?!?! :-)
It’s all a matter of proclivities and probabilities.
I have to give the fellow in question the benefit of the doubt, that he is a sincere believing Christian man who did not take the job intending to score on girls.
But he’s human, a sinner, and weak like us all and the sparks flew with one of the teen gals and hence, today’s news.
But compare his failings with the other possible outcomes:
Same fellow, but recently married to a lovely Christian woman: still possible but much, much lower likelihood. Not overtaken by lust.
Different fellow, not Christian, not burdened with any guilty of sin, thinks casual sex is great. I don’t care whether this guy is married or not, he’s a great risk.
Surely you can see the differences. Character is very important, and I would take a Christian man’s character over a non-Christian’s any day. That said, I would never hire him unless he was already married.
Most churches of any size do background checks.
This is a surprise. I thought innappropriate sexual relationships were limited to the Catholic Churhc. /s
........................
Couric would have mentioned it on tv if it was a priest.
I think the outrage against the Catholic Church was because even known predators were protected and moved from one position to another, and the Catholic hierarchy was not referring these crimes to the legal authorities.
Within most protestant denominations, but certainly not all, the church leaders rather quickly fire the offender and report the potential abuse to the authorities.
The Mormon church also has a reputation for attempting to hide these cases, too; so it's not limited to the Catholic church.
Not unless there is a woman assistant coach or "team mom" present at all times. Too risky, for the kids and the coach!
There is a difference in the affective meaning of “age of consent” from my grandparents day, and earlier, to today.
The difference is that in the past a person, male or female, acquired a larger net portion of their life skills (skill and responsibilities to sustain life) at a younger age than most do today.
Today, childhood has been extended into adolescence and adolescence extended sometimes into the late twenties.
It is by current mental framework that we judge “age of consent” and in the current mental framework a majority of 15-year-olds are a decade or more away from being mature enough, able enough and responsible enough for sustaining life on their own. Thus, having put them into a state of needing our continued protection, we can classify one a few years older as an abuser and the younger one a victim.
I actually don’t disagree with you but given how lascivious today’s culture is (outside of churches) then I think there needs to be a reason to keep lustful men between ages 18 and 35 away from girls technically above the age of consent (say, 15) but still not ready for the wild and woolly world.
Think back 500 years to a little village in Europe. If it’s a safe, insular place, you let your 15-year old near-woman out and around. But if the huns have been raping and pillaging in the nearby vicinity for the past year, even though they haven’t affected your village, you take major precautions. No different here. Any decent man with daughters needs to take precautions.
That will do it!
If the woman was 17 or 18, isn’t it legal for him to bang her like the Liberty Bell? Ethical no, legal yes?
Ouch!
I was a single youth pastor for several years and never touched any girls.
A voice of reason! Teenage girls get oversexed by the culture, at the same time, they learn that a charge of sexual contact with an adult authority figure will get them anything they want.
The man deserves a fair trial before being totally convicted in the media.
he needs to get with that bride who faked her own disappearance. Eyes... eyes...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459933/posts?page=84#84
And I was not trying to malign you. Yes, I know that 100% of youth pastors do not touch the teen gals. But forgive me being a 52-year old man who’s seen it all, and here’s my perspective. Perhaps 5% of youth pastors touch the girls but 99.5% of them are tempted, or at least aroused, yes probably including you. Knowing this, that even the best raised youth pastors and teen girls will be tempted, the best option is that the fellow be already married. After that Wednesday night session when he guiltily sins in his heart he can go home to his bride and not be, well, frustrated.
We received a child-abuse report from social services detailing that a minor female between the ages of 14 and 18
I was married at 16. For pete’s sake, young girls are sexually active at an early age. I cannot see a problem with a young girl and a young man. I guess the playpen would be frome fouteen to twentyeight.
“I would take a Christian man’s character over a non-Christian’s any day”
And I’m sure that’s how he got the job.
Don’t you see the irony in your position?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.