But in making comparisons of cases of abuse definitions of what constitutes abuse matter greatly. Here from one of the studies referred to in the article are some pertinent comments on what is called abuse in the study:
“POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE
Educator Sexual Misconduct:
A Synthesis of Existing LiteratureUsing the Ontario College of Teachers “Professional Advisory on
Professional Misconduct Related to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct” (2002,
p. 2) as a guide, educator sexual misconduct in this review is defined as any
“behavior of a sexual nature which may constitute professional misconduct.”
(p. 1). Included in this broad listing are several types of conduct including overt
and covert actions:
• Any conduct that would amount to sexual harassment under Title IX
of the (U.S.) Education Amendments of 1972.
• Any conduct that would amount to sexual abuse of a minor person
under state criminal codes.
• Any sexual relationship by an educator with a student, regardless of
the student’s age; with a former student under 18; with a former
student (regardless of age) who suffers from a disability that would
prevent consent in a relationship. All students enrolled in the school
and in any organization in which the educator holds a position of
trust and responsibility are included.
• Any activity directed toward establishing a sexual relationship such
as sending intimate letters; engaging in sexualized dialogue in
person, via the Internet, in writing or by phone; making suggestive
comments; dating a student....
3.1.1.1 AAUW data and Shakeshaft secondary analysis. This
analysis used data collected for American Association of University Women in Fall 2000
by Harris International. Eighth through 11th grade students in the sample responded to a
survey administered by trained interviewers during English classes. The survey asked
students about their experiences of various forms of sexual harassment or abuse in
school using the question below. Students responded to each of the 14 types of sexual
harassment listed below by selecting one of the following frequencies: “often,”
17
“occasionally,” “rarely,” “never,” or “don’t know.” The 14 stems were developed by an
advisory panel of experts in the field of sexual harassment and correspond to behaviors
that legally constitute sexual harassment, abuse, or misconduct. The question focuses
on experiences that occurred in school. The gating question asked students to respond
to each type of behavior, no matter who the abuser had been. Follow-up questions for
each of the behaviors identified the role of the abuser (student, teacher, other school
employee, etc.) and the place where the abuse occurred. The question asked students
was:
During your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes
students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following
things to you when you did not want them to?
• Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks.
• Showed, gave or left you sexual pictures, photographs, illustrations,
messages, or notes.
• Wrote sexual messages/graffiti about you on bathroom walls, in locker
rooms, etc.
• Spread sexual rumors about you.
• Said you were gay or a lesbian.
• Spied on you as you dressed or showered at school.
• Flashed or “mooned” you.
• Touched, grabbed, or pinched you in a sexual way.
• Intentionally brushed up against you in a sexual way.
• Pulled at your clothing in a sexual way.
• Pulled off or down your clothing.
• Blocked your way or cornered you in a sexual way.
• Forced you to kiss him/her.
• Forced you to do something sexual, other than kissing.”
Blocking someones way is not the same as anally sodomizing a seven year old boy.
Nor is signing a teaching contract a vocation from God.
I think maybe if you polled the media behind this treatment they'd say teaching is a vocation from God and priest isn't.
WHAT!?
So what are the 'rules' if the person DID 'want them to'?