Text Us: 870870
Studio: (504)260.1870
Toll Free: (866)889.0870
| More

Scoot's Blog

Tune in to "The Scoot Show" for lively, candid discussions about news, politics and culture with WWL's "Radical Moderate!"

Weeknights 8pm-Midnight

Twitter: @scootwwl
Email: scoot@wwl.com
Facebook: Scoot on the Air

Scoot: Marijuana and gun ownership

Should a patient who is prescribed medical marijuana by a doctor in a state where the use of medicinal marijuana is legal – lose their 2nd Amendment rights?

Bobbi Jo Floyd of Richland, Washington is an authorized marijuana patient and a proponent for medical pot – but Bobbi is also a Republican who believes in gun ownership.

In January, Bobbi Jo Floyd applied for a concealed pistol license with the local police station. She answered all the questions properly and when asked "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana?" she answered "no." As an authorized marijuana patient in a state where medicinal pot is legal, she believed "no" was the answer that applied to her.

An employee at the police station recognized her and knew that she was a marijuana patient. She was then asked to provide her medical marijuana authorization card. Feeling that everything she was doing was legal, Bobbi complied.

The Richland Police Chief decided that under federal law, Bobbi Jo Floyd was not eligible for the concealed pistol permit and her request was denied.

In June, an amendment was offered in the U.S. Senate that would prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from targeting citizens who have been legally authorized to use medicinal marijuana in states where it is legal.

The issue is complicated because as states legalize the medicinal and recreational use of pot, it is still a controlled substance that is illegal on the federal level.

Under President Obama, the Justice Department appears to be adopting a policy that respects state's rights on the marijuana issue. But beyond that legal conflict, the case of an authorized user of medical marijuana being denied a concealed carry license raises the question of whether smoking pot renders an individual incapable of owning a gun.
Any suggestion that a person who smokes pot should not be allowed to own a gun quickly brings up the question of whether a person who drinks whiskey is safe owning a gun.

I do not smoke pot and will not become a consumer of pot if it becomes legal in my states – but in my life – I have witnessed more mood swings with a tendency to become violent with those who consume alcohol than marijuana.

Hysteria over the effects of marijuana still seems to reach back to the documentary, "Reefer Madness," which was produced to demonstrate the evil effects of pot on an individual. However, pot smokers in the movie displayed extremely exaggerated behavior, including hallucinations and a desire to commit acts of violence. "Reefer Madness" was essentially a propaganda film that in the context of the world today is sheer comedy!

If users of marijuana should not own guns – then I suggest an extensive study be conducted on whether or not those who consume high-potent energy drinks should own guns!
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Locations : Washington
People : Bobbi Jo FloydObama


Scoot: Should young voters stay away from the polls?

The important midterm election is two weeks away and hosts on The Fox News Channel have again, told young voters not to vote!

Tuesday on the Fox News Channel show, "The Five," co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle said that young women should not vote because they do not share the same life experiences as older women and they should go back to spending time on sites like Match.com. Co-host Greg Gutfeld said that "with age comes wisdom" and that the "older you get, the more conservative you get."

Earlier this month on the Fox News Channel show "Outnumbered," co-host Harris Faulkner said that young people should not vote because they "don't know the issues."

Is this a good message to young voters – don't vote?

When I turned 18 – I remember being excited about registering to vote and I have been a consistent voter ever since. At 18, I felt I was informed enough to vote. Why would a few of the hosts on the Fox News Channel discourage young voters from voting in the upcoming election? Could it be that younger voters tend to vote for Democrats over Republicans and the message to stay away from the polls is an attempt to protect Republican candidates?

It is irresponsible for anyone in the media to tell a particular demographic to stay away from the polls and not vote in an election. Voting is a precious right that we, in America, are born with, and yet it is so often taken for grant it. In Hong Kong, we have witnessed citizens, many young people, protesting in the streets for the right to have a democratic voice – and in America, many people who probably consider themselves patriotic Americans are not registered to vote and many who are simply do not make an effort to vote.

The suggestion that young people not vote is to suggest that older Americans are well-informed before they go to the polls and I do not see research that supports the premise. Older Americans who blindly vote for any candidate from a particular party, rather than research the individual candidate void of their party affiliation, are not voting responsibly.

As America has grown more politically divided – many citizens pick a team – Republican or Democrat – and support that party's candidates. Every American should be challenged to vote for a candidate – not a political party. Of course, many who align themselves with one party or another will support the candidates on their political character and not simply because of party affiliation. But many will only see the color red or blue when voting.

My generation had a strong political voice in the shadow of an Establishment that thought we were uninformed. My generation is now the Establishment and I reject the idea that young people should be discouraged from voting.

Rather than tell young people to stay away from the polls – young people should be encouraged to study the issues and the candidates. And older voters should look themselves in the mirror and challenge themselves to do the same.

Vote! But know who and what you are voting for or against! Participation in the system of politics is a more powerful way to show you are a patriotic America than waving a flag. Waving a flag is easier – but not more patriotic!
 (0) Comments


Scoot: Why it's wrong to call Saints loss "unfortunate"

The Scoot Blog for September 24, 2014 was titled: "Do the Saints lack a killer instinct?" The previous Sunday the Saints beat the Vikings at home, but the lack of a killer instinct on the part of the Saints was apparent.

Following the Saints "come-from-ahead-loss" Sunday in Detroit, ESPN.com posted an article titled: "Drew Brees, Saints have lost killer instinct." While I do not always agree with the national media's coverage of the Saints and New Orleans – the ESPN article is justified.

Before the game, I said I thought the Saints would beat the Lions and not only improve their record, but also take a step toward silencing the critics about winning on the road. And for most of the game – my prediction was looking good!

What happened Sunday in the total collapse of the Saints was an unfortunate, but familiar sight to Saints fans. But most of us thought those sights of losing games in the end were part of the Saints in the past – not a Saints team with so much promise at the beginning of the season. Optimism about the Saints was not just coming from Saints fans - calling the Saints a "Super Bowl contender" was widespread throughout the national media.

The Saints had the talent and even overcame injuries in the game against the Lions Sunday to lead 23-17 with under 3:40 remaining in the game – and that's when the Saints began to fall apart. But if they had the talent to hold a lead until the closing minutes of the 4th quarter – then the only possible reason for losing is mental – not physical. To me that suggests the lack of a killer instinct that comes from the top leaders.

I respect Drew Brees accepting responsibility for throwing an interception and letting the team down, but I continue to hear a deafening tone of complacency in post-game explanations. Where is the sense of urgency?

The word "unfortunately" has been used in post-game press conferences and interviews. Using "unfortunately" seems to suggest that there is some force plaguing the Saints. One definition of "unfortunate" is: "suffering from bad luck." The Saints are not sitting at 2-4 right now because of bad luck and the continued use of the word "unfortunately" suggests that there was really nothing the Saints could do to prevent the loss.

Sean Payton has not been pleased with reporters asking about the Saints having a problem winning on the road – but the Saints have proven that they have had a problem winning on the road.

An ambience of complacency has been dominating the post-game reviews of the game and that is not reassuring for fans. It is not necessary for coaches or players to rant and rave and become physically animated to show their disappointment with losing – but what has been lacking from the Saints publically is a defiant and determined tone that this team will change.

I hope we look back on the early part of this season like I think we will look back on the panic over Ebola in the United States. The Saints happen to be in a division where no team is dominating and even with a relatively poor record – the Saints could still win the NFC South and go to the playoffs.

Mark Menard from WWL Sports has spoken of a playoff scenario where the Saints win the NFC South and the Seattle Seahawks are a wild card team – which could lead to the Seahawks would playing the Saints in the dome. The Seahawks went to the playoffs with a poor record and that year they knocked the Saints from the playoffs. Could the Saints be on the road to ultimate revenge?

And the road to revenge could being Sunday night in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome when the Saints take on the red-hot Green Bay Packers in a national televised game. I thought the Saints were going to turn the season around last week in Detroit – but they have another chance to do that this Sunday night!

If the Saints beat the Packers Sunday that will still keep alive the questions about the Saints winning on the road. Only the team can stifle those questions and it is fair for the media to ask about the team's road record.

It should also be a concern when Drew Brees throws up the ball "hoping" that a Saints player catches the ball. Brees is now being criticized for being so unwilling to take a hit that he is willing to throw the ball up for grabs. Bobby Hebert has said that 'when much is given – much is expected.' It is only fair that Saints fans expect more from Drew Brees – it is fair that Drew Brees expects more of himself.

I hope the word "unfortunate" is not used Sunday night following the game because we won – but even in losing – the word "unfortunate" makes it seem like a displacement of responsibility.
 (1) Comments


Scoot: Is Ebola turning you into a germophobe?

Now that a second hospital worker who cared for the Ebola patient who died in Dallas has contracted the deadly disease, are you becoming a germophobe?

For those of us who have admitted we are germophobes, our lives will not really change. But will the fear of an Ebola outbreak in America cause others to become even more conscious of germs?

When two doctors treating Ebola patients in Africa contracted the disease and were flown back to the United States for treatment, the CDC assured us that the chances of Americans getting Ebola was so miniscule that there was no need for concern. After a hospital worker in Dallas came down with the disease, the CDC announced it was changing its protocol for handling Ebola patients. Suddenly, one gets the impression that even the CDC underestimated Ebola.

Deborah Burger of National Nurses United claims that nurses across the nation have not been properly trained to care for Ebola patients.

The fear of a possible Ebola outbreak in America has topped the news and social media. Both the news media and social media thrive on this kind of story. Ebola is serious, but there is often a tendency to exaggerate stories to attract a greater audience, which is the goal of both the news media and social media.

The news media is not necessarily exaggerating the serious nature of Ebola, but, instinctively, the new media creates a sense of urgency that often transcends reality.

With movies like, "Outbreak" and "Contagion," Hollywood has given us all a capsulized scenario of what can happen when a deadly disease spreads. But we should remember that as realistic as movies can be, the ease with which a disease might spread in the real world is quite different from what we see in a 2-hour movie.

Ebola is real and so is the threat that it will spread – but the possibility of average Americans contracting the disease does not match the visions we have from movies.

The good news is that many of those who become more paranoid about being exposed to Ebola will change their awareness of germs everywhere and that might prevent then from even getting the flu this season.

The fear of a widespread outbreak of Ebola in America still seems like a very distant possibility. Let common sense overpower the temptation to become hysterical as the news continues to promote an outbreak as a real possibility.

This is one time when I'm glad I'm a germophobe – my habits need not change!
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Topics : Health_Medical_Pharma
Social :
Locations : Dallas
People : Deborah Burger


Scoot: Does Ebola have a new face?

Does an attractive 26-year-old nurse contracting Ebola in the United States change the face of the disease?

When Nina Pham, a nurse who treated Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan, was diagnosed with Ebola even after wearing protective gear, the idea that Ebola could spread to average Americans dominated the news. The face of Nina Pham gave a new face to the deadly virus.

635488007680512814-101314nina-phamThe American doctors who contracted Ebola working with patients in Africa and returned to the United States for treatment did change the images of those suffering with the disease – but it seems that the young nurse with Ebola drastically changed the perception that Ebola was not reserved for the stereotypes we have seen on the news daily.

During the 1980s, there was much criticism of the government for not being more proactive in trying to control the spread of AIDS. At the time, AIDS was perceived as a disease of gays and street drug users. But in 1984, Ryan White, a typical American teenager in middle school in middle class America was diagnosed with full-blown AIDS following a blood transfusion.

Fear immediately spread and when Ryan tried to return to school in 1985, he was denied admission over fear that other students would contract AIDS – even though Ryan was cleared by health officials.

Parents, teachers and students aggressively protested the school system allowing Ryan White back in school. After protests and court battles, Ryan White returned to school in February of 1986, but 151 of the 360 students stayed home because out of fear that AIDS would spread to others just by being in the same school with Ryan.

Ryan White became the new national face of AIDS and suddenly the concern of contracting the disease became real for many average Americans. AIDS was no longer seen as a gay and street drug user disease. Even President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush embraced Ryan White with honors and empathy.

Is the young Dallas nurse, Nina Pham, the Ryan White of Ebola?

It is unfortunate that there is such a great tendency to dismiss a problem until it appears that it could become your problem. Most Americans felt very little fear from Ebola because they would never travel to West Africa and the chances of coming in contact with someone who had traveled to that part of the world seemed too remote to be a serious concern. But when Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the CDC, changed his position from reassuring Americans that they are not in a position to contract the disease to the CDC reassessing protocol – concern among average Americans justifiably grew.

The truth is – we share this planet with other human beings – other human beings who look, act and talk differently. Our bond is not with human beings in general – our bond is with human beings that look, act and talk like us.

Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person to be diagnosed with Ebola in the U.S. was just as human as Nina Pham, the Dallas nurse who is the first person to contract Ebola in the U.S. – yet, the face of Nina Pham suddenly makes the disease more of a reality for all of us.
 (0) Comments


Scoot: Two teachers, one student

The arrest report in the case of the two Destrehan teachers accused of having sex with a 16-year-old student has been released by police. The report indicates that the teachers allegedly "had consensual intercourse with a 16-year-old juvenile." The teachers are identified as Shelley Dufresne and Rachel Respess. The report shows that both teachers engaged in sex with the same student at the Kenner apartment of Rachel Respess.

The arrest report also shows that the alleged sex began on the night of Friday, September 12 and continued into the following morning. Investigators are awaiting a forensic analysis of a cell phone that may contain video of the teachers and the student.

Even those who know this alleged sexual activity is blatantly wrong – there is still an instinctive reaction of "Wow – how did this guy get so lucky?"

If we have come a long way since the Women's Lib Movement in the 1970s – much of our culture continues to celebrate the male prerogative when it comes to sex. There is little doubt that reaction to this case would be different if the teacher has been male and the student had been a 16-year-old female, which demonstrates that the double standard with sex is still in place.

One reason for the double standard is the fact that in most cases – the male has the physical strength to control a sexual situation with a female – or in this case – two females. But if the law defines female adults having sex with a 16-year-old male student as a crime – even if consensual – then reaction should be the same as if it were a 16-year-old girl. Yet, reaction to a male in this situation reinforces gender inequality.

As I wrote in a previous blog, the 16-year-old male student knew what he allegedly agreed to do with the teachers was wrong and yet, he voluntarily drove to the apartment where the sexual activity allegedly took place and according to the arrest report he stayed there all night. If the adult teachers did participate in sex with a 16-year-old student – they should be held accountable. But the argument could be made that a 16-year-old student would know that sexual activity is wrong even with another 16-year-old.

In a world that has fought against gender discrimination – the silent reaction that many have about a 16-year-old student having sex with two attractive young teachers is affirmation that when it comes to sex – males are "triumphant" and females are "trash."

Isn't it time we recognize and correct this obvious discrepancy?
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Topics : Law_Crime
Social :
People : Rachel RespessShelley Dufresne


Scoot: Do you have a 'right to die?'

We have the freedom to make many choices in America, but only three states – Oregon, Washington and Vermont – grant individuals the right to die.

A 29-year-old woman with a brain tumor has chosen November 1 as her "deathday." Brittany Maynard moved to Portland, Oregon and plans to take advantage of the state's Death with Dignity Act and will be prescribed a lethal medication on November 1.

Maynard says that she wants to die with dignity, rather than suffer the slow and painful death from her brain tumor. She says she wants to die in her own bed at home with her favorite music is playing while surrounded by her husband and family. She says she is not suicidal, but is choosing to die on her own terms.

Do you think Americans should have the right to choose to die? This ethical question inspires a passionate debate. We have either witnessed or heard stories about people who have endured a long and painful death. Assisted suicide is a way to prevent an individual from suffering. But then there is the question about whether that is playing God.

Many believe that God gives life and only God can take life and to make a decision that has been left up to God is considered a major sin. However, the other argument is that if humans are blessed with the intelligence to create a means that would prevent intense suffering – shouldn't we embrace that option?

Even without laws permitting citizens the right to die – we are all free to choose death over life. That's called suicide. We have a right to abuse and destroy our bodies with substances – yet we debate whether we should have the right to choose death over life.

This is obviously a question that can only be answered by individuals facing a painful death and their families. The concept of right to die laws is not based on giving a depressed teenager the right to choose to end their life. Doctors are involved in the process and an assessment is made based on an individual's case.

When I think about this 29-year-old who is choosing to die on November 1, I think about the life she will be missing and the life she is taking from her friends and family. Brittany Maynard says in an online video that her message to everyone is to live your life to the fullest every day. But if she choose to die while she is still capable of communicating - think of the things that might be said during that time and the shared moments with others. If each day of life we have an opportunity to touch others with our thoughts, words and presence – shouldn't we take advantage of that blessing?

I believe that each individual and their families must make that very personal and final decision and I am not attempting to pass judgment or speak for Brittany Maynard and her family. But life is precious and in any moment of any day we never know how we might impact the lives of others.

I recently met a listener, Ms. Donna of Houma, who was dying. Her daughter said she was a big fan and she wanted to meet "Scoot." In the few weeks I knew her before she passed away, I had a chance to visit her 3 different times at her home in Houma. In the time that I spent with Ms. Donna – she touched me and taught me that expressing love and appreciation only takes a hand – a word – or just eye contact.

I know she was in pain, but if Ms. Donna had chosen death – I would never have touched my life and that means she touched the lives of so many others. I witnessed how her family came together and appreciated every moment they had with this wonderful woman.

The lesson to be learned from the debate about the right to die is that every living moment we have the ability to touch the lives of others. There could come a time when the pain of dying becomes so unbearable that pain medication is no longer working and that may be the right to time ask permission if you can leave this world.

I hope in the case of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard that she considers the moments she is taking from those close to her – as well as the moments she will be missing.
 (1) Comments
Tags :  
Topics : Social Issues
Social :
Locations : OregonPortlandVermontWashington
People : Brittany MaynardDonna


Scoot: 4-year-old passes out heroin at day care

In a society that continues to embrace the concept that individuals are not accountable for their actions, the debate over holding parents accountable for their children gaining possession of guns or drugs rages on.

Police in Selbyville, Delaware have arrested the mother of a 4-year-old girl, who mistakenly brought hundreds of packets of heroin to her day care center and began handing them out to the other children thinking the packets were candy. What candy looks like heroin?

Ashley Tull, 30, was charged with 3 counts of child endangerment and maintaining a drug property, which means she knowingly allowed drugs in her home. A woman who identified herself as Ashley Tull's sister said that her sister had no idea the heroin was in her home and the charges and the media attention are unfair.

The mother faces 3 counts of child endangerment because she has 3 children ages 4 to 11. She is not allowed to have contact with her children, who are now in the custody of relatives.

I often talk about holding parents completely accountable if their children get their hands on guns and hurt themselves or others or bring the guns to school. And yet, there are always those who defend the parents saying that "kids are mischievous and parents are not always responsible." Well, I disagree!

Children are innocent and throughout the animal kingdom, adult animals care for their offspring until they are believed old enough to care for themselves. Why would homosapiens be exempt from the rules instinctively followed by other animals?

Police say an investigation continues and more charges may be filed. If Ashley Tull's sister is correct and her sister was not aware of hundreds of packs of heroin in her home and within reach of her 4-year-old daughter, then at the very least, she is guilty of associating with an individual who brought the heroin into her home with children present. Either way – she should be held accountable.

The other disturbing aspect of this story is that the 4-year-old girl knew to hand the packets of heroin to the other children, which would lead me to believe that she was simply imitating the actions of her mother and other adults. How else would the child have known to share the heroin with others? Similar to when a young child gets ahold of a parent's gun and the child knows exactly what to do with the gun - is it not reasonable to assume that the child was imitating the behavior they have witnessed in their home with adults?

People point to different changes in our past that have led this country down the wrong path. I hear the arguments that it was the removal of prayer from public schools or legalized abortion or the idea that parents can no longer spank their children as the reasons for America's societal downfall.

I have often discussed on the show that many of the widespread problems we face in America are the direct result of the continuing erosion of respect for personal accountability. We now live in a society that instinctively reaches for something or someone else to blame for mistakes and bad judgment. There was a time - and it wasn't that long ago – when our society expected individuals to be held accountable for their actions.

In the case of the mother whose 4-year-old daughter brought hundreds of packs of heroin to day care and began handing them out to the children – the mother should be held accountable for either allowing the heroin in her home and within reach of her children or for associating with an individual who brought the drugs into the home.

A few of the children at the day care center in Delaware that did get the packets of heroin were taken to the hospital as a precaution, but fortunately, all of the children were released.

When are we going to start holding adults responsible when they allow their children to gain possession of dangerous objects that have the potential to hurt others?
 (6) Comments
Tags :  
Topics : Law_Crime
Social :
Locations : DelawareSelbyville
People : Ashley Tull


Scoot: Why an FCC ban on "Redskins" is scary

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will consider a petition calling for the agency to ban the name "Redskins" from the airwaves.

The nickname of the Washington Redskins of the NFL is considered a derogatory term by many and the recent controversy over the team's name has led to a demand that the team change its name. Dan Snyder, owner to the team, has vowed to never change the name.

A growing number of network sports anchors and reporters are refusing to say the name "Redskins" when reporting on the team and simply refer to the team as "Washington."

Whether the name "Redskins" is offensive will continue to be debated, but the idea of an FCC ban on the word on broadcast radio and television carries with it a frightening precedent.

The FCC is a branch of the administration and it regulates the public airwaves over which broadcast radio and television stations carry their signals. The FCC has no control over cable or satellite radio and television.

The petition to ban the name "Redskins" was filed by George Washington University Law Professor John Banzhaff III. Professor Banzhaff applied his complaint to the radio license renewal of a Washington, D.C. radio station – WWXX-FM – which is the flagship station for the Washington Redskins and is owned by Redskins' owner Dan Synder.

The professor argues that the name "Redskins" qualifies as hate speech and fighting words, which could provoke violence. However, the FCC does not currently have rules that ban hate speech. The agency does have rules banning indecency, but it is unimaginable that the name "Redskins" would fall into that category.

The idea of the FCC – the government – banning hate speech should send chills up the spine of every American. If the government banned the name "Redskins" because it is hate speech and could incite violence – that would open the door to an administration banning political opinions it considers hateful to a particular president. It is no secret that President Obama is not a fan of the right-wing media. If the FCC had the power to ban hate speech, theoretically, President Obama could ban certain words or phrases it deems anti-administration in the name of maintaining civility in society. And that would mean that any president could use the FCC to censor speech that it considered "hateful." As much as you might disagree with opinions made against President Obama or President Bush in the past, I would hope that there would be respect for the freedom to express opinions that you find hateful.

We all hear speech – on radio and television – that is considered hateful – but a president having the power to ban speech it considers hateful to their administration blatantly defies our precious Frist Amendment rights.

Even if you consider the name "Redskins" to be offensive – it should be up to the American public to determine what is acceptable for broadcast – not a sitting president. The FCC does not have a ban on the N-word – but the use of the N-word is now unacceptable for use on radio or television as a result of the collective voice of the public – the audience.

I could even argue that the FCC's ban on obscenities amounts to government control of free speech. It is the public – the audience – that should ultimately set the standards of what is and what is not acceptable on radio and television and the public does a very effective job of setting standards.

Opposition to the FCC banning the name "Redskins" or even obscenities is not an endorsement of offensive language – but rather respect for the unique freedom we have in America from a government that controls our speech.
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Topics : Politics
Social :
Locations : Washington
People : BushDan SnyderDan SynderJohn Banzhaff IIIObama


Scoot: Did 16-year-old know it was wrong to have sex with teachers?

Two female teachers at Destrehan High School face charges of having sexual relations with the same 16-year-old male student from the school. Shelley Dufrense was arrested Tuesday and Rachel Respess turned herself in to Kenner police Wednesday. Kenner police are involved because the alleged sexual activity took place at a house in Kenner.

An investigation into the alleged sex with a student began after the student apparently bragged about having sex with the teachers. Most of us can think back on teachers we had who were really "hot" and we might have done the same thing if given the opportunity. But would we would have known we were doing something that was wrong? And if it wasn't wrong for the 16-year-old male student – then why are the teachers facing charges?

The teachers were wrong and in any cases involving teenagers and adults – the adults should be presumed responsible – but that should not exonerate the 16-year-old student. Reaction to this scandal says a lot about our society's prevailing attitude of males being encouraged to have sex early. If this had involved two male teachers and a 16-year-old girl – would there be more outrage?

In the case of the 16-year-old male student – he appears to have voluntarily consented to sex with the both teachers and at 16 he should be expected to know right from wrong. Let me be clear – I am not excusing the responsibility of the adult female teachers who were involved – but is it not fair to suggest that the 16-year-old male student willingly participated in something he knew was inappropriate?

The teachers should face charges, but the teenage male should also be held accountable for his actions. I have experience with being 16. In fact, no one has been 16 any longer than I was 16 and at that age I was impressionable but I would have known that what I was doing was wrong. It could even be argued that a 16-year-old male having sex with a 16-year-old female is wrong – so why would it be wrong to hold the male who had sex with the teachers somewhat accountable?

At the age of 12, a babysitter tried to have sex with me in a hotel room in Oklahoma City. It was during the summer and I was on a business trip with my Dad. He had meetings to go to and he hired a babysitter to stay in the room with me. I remember she was very attractive with long black hair and wearing a black dress.

At one point, she came over to the bed I was lying on as we watched TV in the hotel room and she tried to kiss me. Her advances continued and while I didn't exactly know what she was trying to do to me – I didn't feel right about it and I run into the bathroom and locked the door until my father returned. I remember hearing their conversation while I was still locked in the bathroom. She said, "I tried – he wouldn't let me and he locked himself in the bathroom."

At the time I did not realize what my dad was trying to do. It wasn't until I recalled the incident years later as an adult that I realized that my father had hired someone to give me my first sexual experience at the age of 12!

My father was part of a generation that encouraged young males to have early sexual experiences. I never blamed him and I never brought up the fact that I know what he did. I was so embarrassed by what had happened that I could never bring it up to him.

I was always very shy with sex. I was also an insecure kid and teenager, but I think I was that was natural and the incident in the hotel room did not cause me to be extremely shy and insecure with females. Obviously, I got over it and never felt like it had any lasting impact on who I am today.

The point of sharing this very personal story is that even at the age of 12 – I knew that kind of physical contact with an adult, or at least someone much older than I was at the time, was wrong.

As we condemn female teachers who allegedly had sex with a 16-year-old male student – we should also understand that at 16 – we know what is right and what is wrong.

Of course, I have thought about that day in the hotel room in Oklahoma City and knowing what I know today – I have wished I could relive that moment!
 (3) Comments
Tags :  
Locations : Oklahoma City
People : Rachel RespessShelley Dufrense

Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
No Tags Found !