Some have stretched this situation into what might be embarrassing for them. However, in 2004, Jennings implied through his lawyer that he did not know the boy was sexually active. Now, the issue is when did the activity take place that would lead Jennings to say, “I hope you knew to use a condom.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

This situation has morphed into a huge embarrassment for those speaking against Jennings.

And now anything else dug up about Jennings will look like blatant homophobia, as it should.

And, since you ask, I wish I hadn’t spent years feeling ashamed that I might have been gay. It would have been easier to explore what I was feeling honestly, if I had felt otherwise. Instead, I spent years trying to avoid acknowledging those feelings with which, ultimately, I had to come to terms, one way or another.

Hazemyth, I asked how vulnerable you felt as a teen. I guess you could interpret that to mean how secure you were in your identity as you experienced it at the time. Were you susceptible to being preyed on, possibly? Could you know for certain at 15 or even 16 — and yes, this is relevant to the age question as regards Brewster — that you were really gay? Maybe you could, but I don’t think you would say that every kid could.

What I was saying about myself is I know I was vulnerable, immature and unable to clearly interpret all my adolescent feelings, and certainly vulnerable to being turned aside to believe that going down the gay road was what I needed to do. I was raised in the Christian faith. Lots of kids are. That presumes a values conflict with gay feelings for most, which is not automatically unhealthy, as the APA has recognized.

Did Brewster’s age matter: (a) for reporting purposes in Mass., and (b) in terms of his adolescent confusion and angst? Seems to me we have a two-part question here.

reasonable cause to believe…that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare including sexual abuse…

That’s the version from above with the emphasis on age.

reasonable cause to believe…that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare including sexual abuse…

Is it clear that Brewster is being injured physically or emotionally? I believe we see the potential for injury but can we say that Brewster is being physically or emotionally injured? I see ‘at risk’ of being injured.

reasonable cause to believe…that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare including sexual abuse…

Another judgement call…it sounds like Brewster went to the restroom looking for sex. I know we are capable of enough verbal gymastics to turn this into ‘abuse inflicted upon him’…but was that the spirit of the directive? Jennings had a kid report that he’d gone out and had sex with an older person. The purpose of reporting such abuse is to protect a child from an abuser not necessarily protecting the child from themselves.

Consider where any reporting would have led. Did we have the name of the older guy? If Brewster had a clue that this might be reported, would he offer up the info? It’s very unlikely that reporting would have done anything except give Brewster a few highly embarrassing interviews/sessions with a counselor/therapist/social worker. It’s effect on ‘stopping the abuse’ would have been negligible. It’s potential contribution to even more feelings of shame and self-hatred is a variable that Jennings likely had no way to measure.

(Yikes…it sounds like I’ve defected, doesn’t it?!) Take heart. I haven’t. But I simply don’t believe in blindly following a law especially when there are areas that are unclear such as the ones I cited. BUT…did Jennings fall short on some responsibilities. I believe he may have. It sounds as if he mentioned losing a friend to AIDS as a lead-in to his question/advice about using a condom. Talking the reality of death to a teenager…especially death at a young age…ought to be considered as ‘cautionary’. I don’t know how much more we’d have expected Jennings to offer in the way of advice or counsel. I would have liked to hear some advice on ‘don’t trust strangers’…’don’t go to somebody’s home that you don’t know’…I once advised a sexually active underage boy to consider that the people he was engaging in sex with were breaking the law…if they could wink at that law, how did we really know what other laws they felt didn’t apply to them. But Jennings wasn’t a counselor. (For the record, neither was I when I dispensed the advise above. I lived near a park where a lot of cruising was going on and noticed that this kid was ‘always there’ and usually on the fringes of a section that had a reputation for illicit activity.) Jennings didn’t have the benefit of a scheduled appointment and cheater notes on what the problem was. In both scenario’s that have been presented, Jennings has no foreknowledge of Brewster’s issues. The disclosure happens in an ‘off the cuff’ manner and the advice is dispensed in the same way.

Furthermore, we presume the kid to be suicidal due to his ‘I hate my life and might as well be dead’ statement. Sorry but I remember teenage somewhat…I responded that way when my parents wouldn’t let me go to a rock concert…I know teens that respond with nearly identical wording when they get grounded, can’t borrow the car, have to get a job, have a test, get assigned a chore. Only the persons in the conversation have any real sense as to how serious the statement was. Currently, activities that are perceived as ‘self-destructive’ don’t rise to the level of ‘suicidal thoughts’.

It appears that Jensen did the most important thing. He connected. He gave Brewster someone he knew he could go to and talk to…and he made sure to remind Brewster of that when he continued to notice him with a ‘knowing smile’ .

I’m sure I’ve said lots to be disagreed with. Just want you to know that I haven’t said this in an attempt to engage in argument. I’m simply presenting another way of viewing the circumstances. Read it and accept it. Fine. Read it and reject it. Fine. Take some, leave some. That’s fine too. Just so you know that it isn’t as black and white as it’s being presented.

LOL. And lest you think I’ve gone off my rocker and had a total change of mind and heart, you’ll note that I DID NOT weigh in on the Brewster part of the challenge to Jennings on the other cantankerous thread. My questions re Jennings’ qualifications were related to his appraisal of the seminar that included helpful tips on fisting.

Oh, and my reasoning (or lack of it) from the bulk of this post applies whether Brewster was 15 or 16.