Options
EE: Michelle vs Jay - did show just dismiss male sex crime victims?
Given that the age of consent in Florida is 18....
Jay unknowingly sexts underage girl, is (initially) rejected by the Mitchells and labelled a paedo and given criminal record in some big storyline.
Michelle knowingly sleeps with underage boy, and gets "craddlesnatcher" followed by a wink and a hug.
I know consent laws vary but it does seem a bit problematic. If you have sex with a 17 year old in Florida it's the same as having sex with a 15 year old here. A wink and a hug isn't really appropriate is it?
Or is the difference that the victim in Michelle's case is male and therefore 'not as bad'? Either way it's fairly distasteful.
Jay unknowingly sexts underage girl, is (initially) rejected by the Mitchells and labelled a paedo and given criminal record in some big storyline.
Michelle knowingly sleeps with underage boy, and gets "craddlesnatcher" followed by a wink and a hug.
I know consent laws vary but it does seem a bit problematic. If you have sex with a 17 year old in Florida it's the same as having sex with a 15 year old here. A wink and a hug isn't really appropriate is it?
Or is the difference that the victim in Michelle's case is male and therefore 'not as bad'? Either way it's fairly distasteful.
0
Comments
Sadly that's the answer .
I guess it is the law in America, it's quite a strange law.. apparently in Florida 16 and 17 year olds can apply for a provision that makes it legal for them to have sex with another person aged 16-23... which to be honest just seems arbitrary and dumb... if they are allowed to have sex or deemed to be emotionally mature enough for sexual relations I don't see why it should have a random age limit on who they can have sex with..
Yep. Michelle even highlighted it herself in episode when she said something about 'If it were a lad and a younger / older woman then him and all his mates would be celebrating down the pub'.
Under UK law isn't sleeping with someone under 18 over whom you have pastoral responsibilities/duty of care, like a teacher (or however it's worded) also illegal?
So even if it was here, with different age of consent laws, what she did would still have been considered illegal and the boy a victim. The verbal fist-bump she got from Sharon really does look like a very poor choice.
Absolutely, and Michelle would have been jailed.
I agree
But it's only brave if there's a subsequent storyline where Michelle is arrested and put on trial.
If all that happens is (as I suspect) she settles down into Albert Square life and it's never mentioned again, how is that brave from the producers? If anything it just highlights that nobody takes male crimes of sexual abuse seriously.
The crime was committed in America in any case so she'd have to be extradited
My understanding of the law in the USA is that most states the age of consent is 16-18 but there is a provision that if someone under the age of consent but over 14 is having consensual sex with someone the same age or up to 3 years older, the it's not considered illegal.
Even if Michelle's lover was 18, as his teacher she would legally be in a position of trust as his teacher and that has specific penalties and is a separate law.
Yeah but it's only brave if they highlight that as an issue and as being problematic. To me it seemed as if they put the boys age at 17 to provide redemption. "Oh that's not so bad", citing age of consent laws here.
I agree if they make this an ongoing issue then it's a great way to highlight the story.
But we know that's probably not going to happen. Tonight's "he was 17" and the "craddlesnatcher" verbal fist-bump from Sharon is the end of it. I don't think that's brave I think it's the show being woefully insensitive and making a joke out of what is an underage victim of a sex crime, both here and in the US.
While the age of consent might be 18 in America it isn't the UK, here its 16 so while yeah Michelle was stupid to do what she did had this happened in England no one would be batting an eyelid so the reaction is a little over the top
Wrong. She was in a position of trust. If she slept with a 17 year old student here she would have broken the law and been guilty of sex crime.
Sadly I think the writers took the same attitude as you have.
The age of consent here is 16 so had it happened here she couldn't have been found guilty of a sex crime. All what would have happened is her losing her job.
I think all this highlights is double standards. If it had happened here this debate wouldn't be happening but because it happened in America suddenly she is a big bad sex pervert. Its a bit silly
Can you imagine a male character committing a child sex crime, having a bit of a weep in the Square and then their best made patted them on the back and said "Like em young, eh!' with a wry smile.
Given that a lot of kids stay on in full time education until they're 18 here, maybe they should try that with a male teacher. I suspect the reaction would be different, and the writers would treat it very differently. Really is highly insensitive.
Exactly. She abused her position, doesn't matter the ages or physical location.
And come on guys, isn't Michelle's son, Mark Jr, only like 2 or 3 years off this guy's age? That's just creepy...
Whilst the boy may have been fully aware of what he was doing even without being his teacher she still abused her position as an adult. She should have understood at that age he didn't understand love and it's meaning/consequences.
No you're wrong.
When someone is in a position of care/trust of someone else e.g a teacher as Michelle was, the age of consent isn't 16. It's against the law and she would have been arrested and put on trial.