babble: Baseball star was "a passive participant"

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » feminism » Baseball star was "a passive participant"

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Baseball star was "a passive participant"

Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 April 2004 12:11 AM

This story makes me angry! A passive participant? Give me a break!

P.E.I. baseball player's sex conviction overturned

quote:
CHARLOTTETOWN - A 19-year-old man in Prince Edward Island has had his conviction overturned on charges he coerced two girls to perform oral sex.
Cass Rhynes was convicted in October on two counts of inciting girls under the age of 14 to touch him for sexual purposes.
The judge had sentenced him to 45 days in jail in addition to one-year probation and 100 hours of community service.
His lawyer appealed the decision, saying Rhynes was a passive participant. The appeal court agreed, overturning the conviction on Friday.
Rhynes admitted to receiving oral sex from a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old girl but said he believed at the time both girls were 14, the age of consent in Canada. He was 18 when it happened.

Here's another story, regarding his original conviction...

Baseball hopeful sentenced in sex case

quote:
CHARLOTTETOWN - A P.E.I. provincial court judge sentenced professional baseball hopeful Cass Rhynes to 45 days in jail Monday for sex offences involving underage girls.
Judge Nancy Orr also sentenced Rhynes to one year probation and 100 hours of community service.
Rhynes, 19, was convicted in October on two counts of inciting girls under the age of 14 to touch him for sexual purposes. Rhynes admitted to receiving oral sex from a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old girl, but said he believed at the time that both girls were 14, the age of consent in Canada.
Rhynes, from Cornwall, P.E.I., was an 18-year-old high school senior at the time of the incidents.

From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 25 April 2004 06:38 AM

Why does that make you angry, Scott?

From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2004 09:30 AM

Yeah, I don't see it either, Scott. An 18 year-old who has sex with a 14 year-old is basically like someone in grade 13 having sex with someone in grade 9. Lots of girls I knew in grade nine were starting to have sex. Some girls I knew in grade 7 and 8 were starting to have sex, in fact. It is quite possible that they told him they were older than they were, and that they wanted to have sex with him.

I don't think it's right for adults to have sex with 12 and 13 year-olds, obviously - but I think it's possible to make a mistake about someone's age, especially if you're just a teenager yourself. I didn't know too many guys who carded their sexual partners when they were in high school to make sure they were telling the truth about their age.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 25 April 2004 10:18 AM

I don't want to speak for Scott but I didn't like the "passive participant" description. To me, that is saying that the guy isn't responsible because it is the women who were the ones who were actively engaging in the act. It has a "blame the women" element in it...it's as if the guy wasn't even interested.

From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2004 10:52 AM

Yeah, I'm not sure what "passive participant" means. I guess I was thinking of "passive" in opposition to "aggressive", and I don't really think of consensual sex as aggressive. (Well, unless you swing that way

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 April 2004 12:08 PM

It makes me angry because it suggests that an 18 year old getting a blow-job from a 12 year old is OK because "at least he didn't...".

The age of consent exists for a reason.

What does "passive participant" mean anyway? Why didn't Bill Clinton try that one?

Still

[ 25 April 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2004 12:22 PM

I don't think it says that an 18 year-old getting a blowjob from a 12 year-old is okay at all. What it's saying is that he's not guilty because he didn't KNOW she was 12 years old. I always thought it was just basic that in order to be guilty of committing a crime, there has to be intent.

And by "passive participant", I take that to mean that he didn't force himself on the girls, that it was consensual sex.

I know it sucks to imagine our little girls experimenting with sex when they become teenagers (and maybe even a year or two before that). But that's not really what was taken into consideration here, from what I can understand from the information given.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 25 April 2004 08:03 PM

How much money was spent on this prosection and how many other ways could be the money have been better spent (like on sex education programs).

From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

IrishMuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5489

posted 25 April 2004 08:05 PM

"Passive Participant" is a stupid thing to say. Like he just stood whistling a tune or reading a book while the girls went down on him.

The problem is IF the girls lied (and that's an IF) then how would he know how old they were? But again, what if they didn't lie? What if he didn't ask? I mean, really--just randomly receiving blow jobs from two girls that you don't know? Not a good idea.

I have no problem that teens are experimenting with sex...BUT they shouldn't be promiscuous. And, well, getting a blow job from two girls you don't know isn't exactly monogamy.

But then...perhaps I'm just horribly monogamous and prudish.

From: Hamilton, ON | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 25 April 2004 08:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by IrishMuse:
[QB
I have no problem that teens are experimenting with sex...BUT they shouldn't be promiscuous. And, well, getting a blow job from two girls you don't know isn't exactly monogamy.
[/QB]

What if they blew him one at a time? Would that qualify as monogamy?

From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: