I found out today that my fitness trainer went to prison for having sex with underage girls. He was their cheerleader coach, he was 34, they were 14 and 15. He served his time. I am going to fire him tomorrow. I am wondering if I should tell him why.
No. Get rid of him in a non-confrontational manner. Don't put him on the defensive or challenge his ego. Better that you should never pop into his mind again. Maybe tell him that you can't afford him because you're cutting back on expenses.
Ah, I think that is the key point. Forgive and forget? Did you find him on the database or did someone have to break it to you? I think you can make it work. Or try to. Otherwise, make something up. Tell, him you don't need fitness anymore. That you need to devote more time to a porn discussion forum.
A 34 year old man who has sex with a 14 year old girl is fucked up imo, I'd have nothing what so ever to do with him and would fire him immediately! I wouldn't tell him why.
Yes he served his time, but its your choice to make. There's no right or wrong answer. Sure, some girls throw themselves at older guys. That does not make it right. I guess its hard to know the damage he did to them - could be virtually none, could be a lot. I can to some extent understand if a guy with low self esteem or some issues would end up having seemingly consensual sex with a 14 or 15 year old. It is still very wrong to since he would be the most powerful person in such a relationship and that makes it abuse. So in some cases, its understandable (but it can't be defended), and I wouldn't want to beat him up like a child molester. Think over the nuances a bit, and go with whatever you are comfortable with. Edited by - JohnW on 5/15/2009 5:22:47 PM
Still wanking after all these years. 8082 Posts 10/00
Posted - May 16 2009 : 3:01AM
You're lucky you're in the US, in many countries you can't fire a guy like that, especially without giving a legal reason, even if there is no written contract.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - May 16 2009 : 10:50AM
^OTOH, in some places, having sex with a 14 year old girl would cost you a couple of goats.
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - May 17 2009 : 11:16AM
"He was their cheerleader coach, he was 34, they were 14 and 15." Are you 14 or 15? No? Then what's the problem, besides possibly bigotry? A 'con' can't turn his life around and become a contributing member of society, without some "Mark-Of-Cain: dogging him for the rest of his life?
It took me and Google about 20 seconds to find the possible story. Google scares me sometimes. I guess he burst a load on the girls in a hotel room during a trip. Touched them and vice versa. I don't think there was actual sex by the official Bill Clinton definition. Still a bad, bad man. Out already? This dude got 15 years.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - May 17 2009 : 12:48PM
katsirk, this obviously a very personal decision to make so I only wish to share some of my thoughts and not tell you what I think you should do. You are obviously doing a bit of soul searching over this, else you wouldn't be sharing this situation with us. The question comes down to, if a person has paid their debt to society, should they be able to come back into society and move on with their lives? There isn't an easy answer. The first thing is that obviously this guy should never he left alone with teenage girls, especially if he is he is in a position of power over them. This situation does not appear to apply to you. He doesn't appear to be some sort of brutal rapist likely to place any woman who comes in contact with him. Are his services provided in a public setting, like a health club, or in a private setting like his own studio or at your home? Regarding HeyNow's comment about the length of his sentence, his conviction did occur in 2002, so it's not like he was turned loose after 6 months. Actually katsirk, you do have the potential of learning more about this guy then you might learn about some other physical trainer because of his record. You might, as a condition of you hiring him, directly ask about what lead him to do what he did and if he is now under going therapy. If he is in therapy, as bmight be a condition of his parole, you may ask him for permission to speak with his therapist. OTOH, it just might not be worth the hassle.
Good time served can count for half of that and he probably also included some time served while waiting for the trial. There's also the possibility he also got early parole.
They've paid their debt to society? As determined by whom? A jury? A judge? Pursuant to state-mandated sentencing guidelines? A particular parole board? In a state, maybe, with overcrowded prisons? More than one of the above? If you've paid "your debt to society" (maybe, whatever that means), then you're free to walk around with the rest of us (subject to restrictions if you're on parole). But we're still entitled to make our own choices about whom we want to be our personal trainers. Freedom of association and all that -- a First Amendment Right.
-------------- [typos] Edited by - bob on 5/18/2009 1:31:43 AM
I'm with you Bob. Myself, I don't think he has paid his "debt" by any measure. There are certain crimes that carry debts you can not pay...molesting children is one of them.
So, who else is on your hate list Bob? Should a shoplifter never be allowed to hold a job again? What about a burglar? Would you condemn someone to lifetime unemployment if they got a speeding ticket? Think before you answer - speeding drivers kill people, but nobody ever died from heavy petting. Have you ever had a speeding ticket? Could anyone sensibly claim that being crippled for life in a car smash is better than having an orgasm? Would you ban them all from ever being hired by you again, or is it only the thought of young women enjoying a few caresses that gets you upset?
While I can respect a conscientious consumer, and recognize that you clearly have the right to choose to not conduct business with convicted post-prison felons, I find the whole concept of firing someone just because they have a criminal record more than a bit self-righteous. But if you truly are opposed to doing business with an ex-felon, you should consider taking this all the way and purging yourself of any product or service that employs ex-felons. And I'm afraid to tell you that covers a LOT of territory. Starting with the PC you may be using right now. Did you know that Microsoft has several known felon's working in their firewall security division? You'd better chuck that PC right now....you are associating yourself with the "unclean." But I doubt you will chuck that PC. Most conscientious consumers only take action when it is convenient for them to do so.
If, in fact, the guy that was linked is the same guy, he won an appeal and had his sentence reduced. He has, however, properly listed himself on the Pennsylvania Sex Offender registry and is not currently breaking any of the terms of his release. Edited by - LubenLuv on 5/18/2009 12:34:55 PM
All criminal records are not equal, not in my book, anyway! Abusing young girls is a heinous crime and this guy sounds a monster, totally undeserving of a second chance!
"Hate" is far too strong a word, but your post has earned you a place on my "extreme annoyance list" today.
Did I say that an ex-con should never be allowed to hold a job? Please read my post again. I said two things, when boiled down: -- The term "paid their debt to society" is more or less a meaningless bromide. -- I should have the unfettered right not to hire someone based on their having committed an act that I rationally find morally objectionable and/or which brings my personal safety or those of my loved ones into question. I don't believe any of that qualifies as "hate" -- but feel free to characterize it as you wish.
The term "ban" is misplaced, as I am not a king or a legislative body promulgating rules of general applicability. I'm just me -- a single individual making choices for myself. As a matter of morality, I believe that I have the discretion to employ and otherwise associate with whomever I wish, as long as my choices are not based on racism, sexism, or some other irrational method of classification. Should I feel guilty if I don't hire a convicted sex offender as my wife's personal trainer? As a babysitter for my children? How about a convicted burglar or a shoplifter as a retail sales clerk or housekeeper? An embezzler as my accountant? Speeding, per se, is not a felony -- so that comparison is inapposite. But should I feel guilty if I don't employ a convicted drunk-driver. hit-and-run driver. or (even) a driver with a history of speeding tickets for my limo service? Or if I don't want them to be one of the parents that drive for my kids' carpool group? I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether those kinds of decisions are unfair.
No. But one could sensibly claim that a driver who crippled someone by accident is much less blameworthy than a child molester.
Oh pleez.
* ---------------- [typos] Edited by - bob on 5/18/2009 2:47:56 PM
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - May 18 2009 : 2:33PM
I really don't think anyone disagrees with you on this point.
Normally I agree with LubeNLuv, but I don't in this case. I think Katsirk has every right to make her decision based on emotional response and gut instinct. There are times when it's hazardous to intellectualize a situation. She has proof that someone that she has allowed into her life has, at one point, been untrustworthy. Whether this is the guy in the article or not, as a mature adult, he chose to violate the trust of those girls and their parents. It's very likely that he became a cheerleading coach specifically to have access to attractive teenage girls. Let's say he's a high school coach. Where would he have sex with a 15-year-old? On school grounds? In his car? At a motel? In his own home? That's some sleazy shit right there. Even if the girl initiated it, in order for him to act on it, he had to have her somewhere private. That right there is grossly inappropriate, and likely a violation of his terms of employment. In this day and age, people that work with children have to follow specific written policies prohibiting such activity. So not only did he break the law, he broke the trust of his employers. As his current employer, Katsirk can reasonably fire him based on his employment history. All that said, I don't think Katsirk has to justify her reaction one bit. If this knowledge makes her feel uneasy, or it simply makes her dislike the guy, she shouldn't feel ideologically obligated to continue to spend time with him and pay him for it. Nobody owes him (or any one of us) a damned thing.
When it comes right down to it -- and this is a recurring theme between us on this discussion board -- you and I differ on the moral status of men and women who have sex with people who are legally under the age of consent. You consistently impute the experience of pleasure to the minors in these scenarios. On the other hand, I believe that their experience (or not) of pleasure is generally beside the point from an ethical perspective. I do, however, think that if the minor is physically mature and is actively the seducer of a passive adult, those facts cast a somewhat different light on the situation.
^^^ I didn't say that I thought those circumstances would justify or excuse the adult's behavior; I said only that it cast the situation in a somewhat different light. It doesn't erase the adult's culpability, but it does (for me) go the the question of degree. To me, an adult who is passive in that way is shameful. But a predatory adult is a different animal still. --------------- [typo] Edited by - bob on 5/18/2009 3:02:38 PM
As opposed to the adult using intimidation or touching the girl against her expressed protest, it is somewhat different. However in these relationships the adults are obligated to exercise good judgment, whereas the minors are legally assumed incapable of doing the same. In most states, the age of sexual consent is roughly the same as that of getting a driver's license. I don't disagree with that. Mistakes made during each of those activities can have life-long ramifications.
I agree with you almost entirely. In California, however, the age of consent is 18 -- whereas driver's licenses are given to 16-year olds. It's the physically mature 16-year old aggressor that gives me the most pause as far as the degree of the adult's culpability is concerned.
In certain circumstances, I agree. If you have a physically mature teenage girl that gets into a nightclub with a fake ID that claims she's 21, then goes home with some guy, it's unfair if that guy is suddenly brought up on charges. But a man working in a high school setting knows the age ranges of the students in his care. Horny teenagers do stupid shit, like try to fuck their coaches. He has a responsibility to discourage that. And when the hell does a guy's sense of self-preservation kick in? Let's compare hot and horny teenagers to toxic gas. If you were closed in your office with the latter, you'd get the fuck out of there, wouldn't you? Maybe I just can't see this from a man's perspective.
I agree. In discussing levels of diminished culpability, I wasn't including teachers and students or other relationships of trust and authority. To me, those are different.
I sure would. My own sense of self-preservation is acute.
Don't be so quick to overgeneralize. I think you and I see this from essentially the same perspective -- unless I'm missing something.
^^ I meant that I can't see from the perspective of the man that succumbs to teenage seduction. I also can't relate to women that have affairs with teenage boys. What the fuck are they thinking? They're probably not thinking at all, or thinking they won't get caught, or think they're doing nothing wrong because they're in love or some such shit.
That's probably truer than you know, which is why we see these repeat offenders. Putting them in jail doesn't change the way their brain functions, unfortunately.
To answer a few questions, he was and is a talented trainer, it was a public athletic club, and I never felt uncomfortable outside of being pissed that I had to do 3 sets of 30 lunges. He was professional and clearly dedicated to the gym and his clients. I found out through a girl I work with, a former client of his. However, after learning about his past, I realized that I would not continue my training with him, regardless. I struggled with this at first, I mean, he did his time, he is working at his life, blah, blah. Well, it's just not for me. I texted him and said to take me off of the schedule. He asked if everything was ok, I didn't respond. I discontinued my membership to the gym. I'm sure he knows why.
If not for the legal issue, would that still be stupid? Why?
I'm sure you can't, but my instinct kicks in very early indeed. If anyone who looks under age is waiting at my bus stop, I do not speak to them, or even stand near them. I keep my gates locked, and never allow the neighbors kids to play in my yard. I don't even speak to them unless their parents are present. Even with their parents present, I never physically touch them at any time. I don't allow anyone under age into my house without their parents. I always refuse to provide child care when asked. If a park bench is near a playground, I never sit on it if children are present. I never volunteer for anything that involves contact with people under 18. I refuse all requests to play Santa Claus. I will not date a woman who has any children who are under 18. For a single man over 40, life is a constant experience of walking on eggshells. Threats of false accusations and blackmail are common, and witch hunts can result in financial ruin or even death. Clearly this guy was a fool to break the law as he did, but the witchburning attitudes I see on this forum really get me down.
So, when I was seventeen, and having sex with an adult woman, you think she was doing something unethical or immoral? Before you try to dodge again, I will make it easy for you. She invited, and I consented. Are you going to call her a predator? Wait, Bob. I didn't even have an orgasm on our first attempt. Beside the point, I know. If we were in your jurisdiction, and you knew, would you have tried to get my beautiful lover sentenced to fifteen years in prison? If you had succeeded, I won't even write what I would have done to you. I resent your constant implication that your approval of a cruel, narrow-minded, nineteenth century concept of sexual morality somehow makes you superior to me. If my opinions have annoyed you, you can take comfort from the fact that it is mutual. Edited by - licker on 5/19/2009 7:43:12 AM
Don't blame you at all. Yes, he served his time, but at the same time this was a situation where you're hiring somebody to push you physically. He has abused physical trust before and if you're not completely comfortable around somebody it's completely your prerogative to remove yourself from the situation. Very tough call on if you should have told him why or not. "I do not as a rule seek advice about food from thin people..." - Jeffrey Steingarten
If she wasn't your school teacher, then, under the circumstances you've described, I wouldn't have done anything. If your lover was your teacher and my kids went to your school, then I would have reported her. If my kids didn't go to your school, I wouldn't have done anything then, either. As far as "trying to get her sentenced", I'm not a criminal prosecutor because I have no taste for pursuit and punishment unless it's really personal. But here's the other thing: Every situation is different, even though laws can't be administered that way. Given your more-than-fond memories of your experience, I wouldn't want to take that away from you even if I were God. ---------------------- It's useful for me, in thinking about your views on this topic, to know that you have a very personal stake based on your own life experience.