Tickle Me Child Rape?

[Formaldehyde]

But 18 is magically OK?

There was a teacher in the high school where my ex-wife taught who was dating a 16-year-old with the explicit permission of her parents. It created quite a stir in the community. But since they did not have sexual relations, nothing was done about it. They met at church.

 

[shadowplay]

nothing was done about it

Wow. Is that another Florida thing? If that happened up here he would almot certainly have lost his job and the parents might even have been investigated. Also, how do people know the relationship was non-sexual? By taking his good Christian word?

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, was a "South Carolina thing".

Some people from relatively backward states seem to understand that absolutes frequently make little sense even better than those from supposedly sophisticated regions.

 

[Evie]

This would, to the best of my recollection, be perfectly legal in Canada unless there was a real authority situation between the two (eg, prof/student). I completely agree with those laws; at 16 you're old enough to decide whether or not to have sex or engage in a relationship.

And no, *I* wouldn't get into one of those relationship. But that's kind of the point. I'm free to chose, you're free to chose, and past a certain point, nobody has any right to say anything about these choices.

 

[Crezth]

; at 16 you're old enough to decide whether or not to have sex or engage in a relationship.

This is based on what, exactly?

 

[Evie]

Purely my own opinion on the matter, albeit informed by the fact that it seems to be the vast majority of nations in the world as well as US States have their age of consent at or before 16 (generally in the 14-16 range). Since I see no innate reason to consider that consensus inherently wrong, I'm going to play along with it.

 

[bhsup]

I love how the people at the workshop flat out lied right in their statement.

"We took the allegation very seriously and took immediate action," said the reps in the statement.

If they took it seriously, they would have gone straight to the police with the allegations, not investigated themselves. They were simply trying to protect themselves, nothing more.

 

[civver_764]

This is based on what, exactly?

Are you serious?

We need to stop making victims out of people that aren't victims, it doesn't help anybody. If you're a teenager and you have consensual sex you were likely not traumatized(at least not until people continually tell you that you have to be), I don't care how old the other person is. Age has more to do with sexual preference than morality. Sure I don't find old people attractive, but I'm not going to assume everybody who doesn't share that opinion is "abnormal."

Sex is just not that big a deal. Being "emotionally prepared" for it is a societal construct. I'm very very sorry if I sound insensitive to rape victims but this is honestly how I see things.

 

[shadowplay]

I love how the people at the workshop flat out lied right in their statement.

If they took it seriously, they would have gone straight to the police with the allegations, not investigated themselves. They were simply trying to protect themselves, nothing more.

Ah, but he's 16 so it's cool, brah. Like smoking a cigarette.

 

[Luckymoose]

It should absolutely be illegal. When I was 16 I would not want some 45 year old man coming onto me. YMMV.

What if you were gay and found him attractive?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Also, should it matter if a person who works with children is gay?

It shouldn't matter what they are in their personal lives. But very young children shouldn't be exposed to homosexuality, so if they can keep their personal life away from the children they are working with, its fine.

A 16 year old is not a child and having sex with a 16 year old is not child rape.
It's creepy and inappropriate and probably a carreer ender for public figures, but it should not be illegal.

It should absolutely be illegal. When I was 16 I would not want some 45 year old man coming onto me. YMMV.

I guess any age of adulthood is arbitrary. If you are an adult you should be able to sleep with another adult of your choosing, legally. If you are not an adult, there should in fact be laws to protect you, since you are a child.

If a 16 year old gives some form of consent, I feel uncomfortable saying it is equivalent to rape, which usually involves some kind of force or at least coercion, which isn't necessarily the case with a 16 year old. But if the 16 year old is deemed to lack the ability to fully consent (You've got to draw the line somewhere, in NYS its 17, and that's entirely arbitrary but not necessarily a bad number) then it should still be illegal, albeit less serious than flat out rape.

 

[Farm Boy]

If they took it seriously, they would have gone straight to the police with the allegations, not investigated themselves. They were simply trying to protect themselves, nothing more.

You would be surprised how often this crap comes up. Even school systems when they have sketchy evidence don't always bust out handcuffs at the first opportunity. They might loop the police in that they have an unsubstantiated complaint without a request for police intervention, but frequently they may be stuck doing a half measure, like adding an additional monitor to a class that has had the complaint. Been there and done that duty too. Though they may not tell you why you are suddenly being assigned to sit in on somebody else's class, there is really only one realistic explanation for it.

 

[Crezth]

Are you serious? <snip>

Spare me your indignant posturing, I just want to know what makes you draw the line at 16 and not 15 or 10.

 

[shadowplay]

What if you were gay and found him attractive?

Completely irrelevent. What if I'm a 15 year old girl and find my uncle attractive?

 

[Farm Boy]

What if I'm a 15 year old girl and find my uncle attractive?

Seduce him! Babality....

 

[peter grimes]

This is a very interesting situation for me.

Does it devalue all the work Clash and Sesame Street Workshop have done over the years? My first gut reaction is a resounding No. But when the exact same questions were asked in relation to Sandusky, the Catholic Church priests, the Boy Scout Troop Leaders, my answer was Yes.

I'm also trying very hard to view this objectively, but I don't think I'll be able to.

I've worked both with him and for him (as well as for SSW).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is based on what, exactly?

I find it odd that without stating the statutes of the states in question that people feel it safe to assume that 16 is the age of sexual adulthood in this case and therefore not child rape. To boot, they don't even try to hide the fact that the definition they are using is their own belief based on assumptions and opinions, not law.

If someone proves that 16 is the sexual adulthood age in the states in question, I will partially retract the above statement, but I will not retract the part regarding people's opinions and assumptions as that's all posters have given up to this point.

 

[bhsup]

I find it odd that without stating the statutes of the states in question that people feel it safe to assume that 16 is the age of sexual adulthood in this case and therefore not child rape. To boot, they don't even try to hide the fact that the definition they are using is their own belief based on assumptions and opinions, not law.

If someone proves that 16 is the sexual adulthood age in the states in question, I will partially retract the above statement, but I will not retract the part regarding people's opinions and assumptions as that's all posters have given up to this point.

Seseme Street is filmed at Kaufman Astoria Studios, Astoria, Queens, New York City.

Per Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#New_York

New York

The age of consent in New York is 17.

The offense will be more serious depending on relative ages, thus:
Sex with a person under 17 is a misdemeanor if the perpetrator is at least 16 (see infra). (“Sexual misconduct,” NY Penal Law § 130.20.)
Sex with a person under 17 is a Class “E” felony if the perpetrator is at least 21. (“Rape in the third degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.25; “Criminal sexual act in the third degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.40.)
Sex with a person under 15 is a Class “D” violent felony if the perpetrator is at least 18. However, it is a defense to this charge if an 18 year-old perpetrator proves by a preponderance that he or she was less than four years older than the victim. This is not a defense to any other charge that might apply, i.e., Sexual misconduct, supra. (“Rape in the second degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.30; “Criminal sexual act in the second degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.45.)
Sex with a person under 13 is a Class “B” violent felony if the perpetrator is at least 18. (“Rape in the first degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.35[4]; “Criminal sexual act in the first degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.50[4].)
Sex with a person under 11 is a Class “B” violent felony if the perpetrator is at least 16. (“Rape in the first degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.35[3]; “Criminal sexual act in the first degree,” NY Penal Law § 130.50[3].)

"Sex," as used above, refers to the four conspicuous types of sexual acts, including "sexual intercourse", "oral sexual conduct" (both types), and "anal sexual conduct." The latter three acts were known by statute as "deviant sexual intercourse" prior to 2003.

Non-intercourse sexual activity is also regulated based on age. Non-intercourse sexual activity, called "sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. It includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing." (NY Penal Law § 130.00[3].) If the person is underage such "sexual contact" can constitute the crime of "sexual abuse."
"Sexual contact" with a person less than 17 but at least 14, by a perpetrator who is at least five years older than the victim is "Sexual abuse in the third degree," a class B misdemeanor. (NY Penal Law § 130.55.)
"Sexual contact" with a person less than 14 is "Sexual abuse in the second degree," a Class A misdemeanor, if the perpetrator is at least 16. (NY Penal Law § 130.60[2].)
"Sexual contact" with a person less than 11 is "Sexual abuse in the first degree," a class "D" violent felony, if the perpetrator is at least 16. (NY Penal Law § 130.65[3].)

Certain defenses

It is not a defense that the perpetrator believed the victim was older than is later proven. (NY Penal Law § 15.20[3]).

Legally recognized marriage is a defense. (NY Penal Law § 130.10[4].)

The only minimum age for a perpetrator of first degree rape/criminal sexual act with a victim under 11 (NY Penal Law §§ 130.35[3] & 130.35[3]), sexual abuse in the first and second degrees (NY Penal Law §§ 130.65[3] & 130.60[2]), and misdemeanor Sexual misconduct (NY Penal Law § 130.20) is provided by the defense of infancy found at NY Penal Law § 30.00(1). That age is 16 years old. Someone under that age may be adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, but may not commit these crimes. On the other hand, someone who is 16 years old commits a crime by voluntarily having sex with anyone who cannot themselves legally consent to sex, including another 16-year-old, even if this "victim" is actually older. (People v. Bowman, 88 Misc. 2d 50; 387 N.Y.S.2d 982 [City Crim. Ct. 1976]; Matter of Jessie C., 164 A.D.2d 731; 565 N.Y.S.2d 941 [4 Dept., 1991].) In effect, mutual crimes are committed when two unmarried 16-year-old individuals voluntarily have sex with each other in New York State, each being the "victim" of the other.

Other crimes

It appears that the crime of "Predatory sexual assault against a child," a class A-II felony, effectively subsumes all instances of "statutory" first degree rape/criminal sexual act where the victim is under 13 (NY Penal Law §§ 130.35[4], 130.35[4]) and the perpetrator over 18. (NY Penal Law § 130.96.) Thus, any person who commits one of these lesser offenses would necessarily commit the greater offense of "Predatory sexual assault against a child." (See, People v. Lawrence, 81 A.D.3d 1326; 916 N.Y.S.2d 393 [4 Dept. 2011].)

There are other special offenses, namely "Course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree" and "Course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree" that punish sex with an underage person combined with an additional illegal sexual act during wide time period. These do not subject a person to more punishment than the crimes listed above but provide only a gimmick for prosecutors to avoid the requirement that an individual sex act be specified in a rape indictment. (See, People v. Beauchamp, 74 N.Y.2d 639; 539 N.E.2d 1105 [1989].)

(Note that "violent felonies" are specified by NY Penal Law § 70.02. Actual "violence" is irrelevant.)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I love how the people at the workshop flat out lied right in their statement.

If they took it seriously, they would have gone straight to the police with the allegations, not investigated themselves. They were simply trying to protect themselves, nothing more.

I will have to reread the article for sure, but did it say they didn't contact the police?

Also, is it mandatory to report every statement to this effect made by an adult (the accuser is of legal age now) who could have ulterior motives? Also, if posters are correct and the age of consent in question is 16, no crime was committed and only an internal investigation is warranted.

Edit: Assuming the sex happened in NY (reasonable assumption IMO) then it was a crime and should have been reported. However, are we sure SSW didn't report? I'll have to read VR's helpful post later to see if this qualifies as child rape.

Thanks VR

 

[Luckymoose]

Completely irrelevent. What if I'm a 15 year old girl and find my uncle attractive?

You seduce him? How is incest more relevant than a 16 year old, potentially gay, male having a relationship with a 45 year old male?