The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Police: Lesbian Coach and Teenage Girl ‘Had an Ongoing Sexual Relationship’

Posted on | September 2, 2014 | 114 Comments


Leah Eames, 32, is a teacher and swim team coach at Sycamore High School in Dekalb, Illinois. On the night of August 10, a police officer checking on the YMCA “after hours found Eames working out with a student.” The circumstances were suspicious; when police checked surveillance video at the YMCA, it showed Eames and the teenage girl holding hands. Upon further investigation “police said detectives were able to identify the student and later interview her, and later discovered that Eames and the student had an ongoing sexual relationship.”

Eames was charged last week with criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. She could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted. She was placed on paid leave from her teaching job.




114 Responses to “Police: Lesbian Coach and Teenage Girl ‘Had an Ongoing Sexual Relationship’”

  1. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 7:09 pm

    The free market also entitles people to make trial and error with efficiency and outcomes. And it also entitles them to be inefficient or unprofitable in certain spheres if they choose to do so.

    Some private entities, be they schools or whatever else, may decide they want to perform these “personality screenings” themselves and have intimate control over the process and results because they want the most possible information and control of whatever employees and outcomes. You may think that is less workable and less efficient, which may be true, but whatever private school or company may disagree and try their method. And the beauty of the free market is that one person’s notion about what is the best and most workable solution does not force other people to use only that method.

    I’ve known many a corporate manager who has to outsource criminal background checks to an outside company, which will only give a “yes” or “no” answer without providing background details. They are always complaining that they want to know more details about these background checks, but corporate policy won’t allow it because of fear of litigation.

  2. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 7:14 pm

    No, I didn’t know that. Would it have made a difference if I said “nevertheless”?

    I had to use that word to distinguish between criminal punishment and general negative life consequences, which you try to conflate. You are suggesting that because somebody ever suffers exclusion or opprobrium for their thoughts becoming known, then it constitutes “thought-crime” and wrongful persecution, which is ridiculous.

  3. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 7:20 pm

    Okay, so when parents judge a person by his sexuality and will not allow him to be near their children because his sexuality makes him attracted to children, they are acting as stupid as if they were “suing the Easter Bunny?”

    If you are saying that certain parental decisions are stupid or unfounded, then you are saying something “about how to raise kids.”

  4. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 7:23 pm

    I am sorry, I do not understand your point or how that relates. Because people acknowledge groups such as parents, then defending the decisions of parents to exclude people from their children’s proximity based upon sexuality factors constitutes the exercise of force or coercion?

  5. NeoWayland
    September 5th, 2014 @ 7:49 pm

    Because (and this is the important bit)

    Unless you are involved it’s none of your business.

    Is it your kids? Is it kids you are related to? Is it the kids of someone you know?

    You have no business judging someone’s sexuality unless there is a crime or unless you are involved.

    Note the emphasis there.

    You and your “aggregate judgments” have no place unless you are involved.

  6. NeoWayland
    September 5th, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

    Because you do not speak for those groups, but are all too quick to judge for them.

    Even without a crime.

  7. NeoWayland
    September 5th, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

    When offered a choice between an insurance company that won’t tell intimate details because you pay them or an employer, I’d choose the insurance company and another employer.

    Freedom of choice, the cornerstone of the free market.

  8. NeoWayland
    September 5th, 2014 @ 8:05 pm

    And I think that just about wraps it up.

    You’d never agree to the same treatment that you’re so anxious to push.

    That says more than I ever could.

    Remember, it’s not a right unless the other guy has it too.

  9. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 8:12 pm

    I make aggregate judgments, and so do other people, including parents. Some I may agree with, others not. Some I would condemn and some I would support. Whether I condemn or support them does not mean whatever person is not free to still make them. However, I am not obliged to stay silent about these decisions. The fact that parents and persons are free to make certain decisions does not mean those not personally involved are obliged to hold our tongues, whether we intend to say positive or negative things.

    And then you say something like this: “You have no business judging someone’s sexuality unless there is a crime or unless you are involved.”

    So now you add the qualifier of being involved? Well, here is another thing, I and any other person can comment on whatever policies or decisions involving what persons can have access to children, whether or not we are parents. If parents decide that they will not allow someone to be near their children because he is attracted to children, lots of people would agree with that decision and may support it and support other like-minded parents who would make the same decision. There may also be a minority of persons who disagree with that and they can voice their condemnation. Either way, the fact that they are not personally involved in the matter does not oblige them to stay silent and hold no opinion on the matter.

    My personal aggregate judgments may not be personally involved, but very similar aggregate judgments may be taking place within many schools and households. Lots of parents may say they will not consider a male babysitter because they consider males less trustworthy as caregivers, and that may not be an entirely unsound decision which others may support. Excluding a pedophile from being a babysitter would seem to be a less objectionable judgment.

    When this thread started, I pointed out that some people, groups, and parents might make some aggregate judgments and that these can sometimes be sensible. Then you went into your whole line about how nobody should be prohibited or excluded unless they have committed a crime or have been screened for having abusive personality. Now you qualify your line by saying that parents have the right to do so for any reason they like, but I should never comment upon this or voice support for their use of aggregate judgments in their decisions which I find sensible.

    Supposedly, if we are not personally involved in something, we are obliged to only chirp your line that each person should be given the benefit of whatever doubt unless they commit a crime. Tell us another one.

  10. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 8:16 pm

    If any parents think it is good and okay to let a pedophile babysitter their children, they may happily do so whenever they like. One even said so to Lisa Ling on “Our America.”

    I do not “judge for them” but I suspect lots of them would make a certain judgment for those scenarios which I described, and I voiced my support for those who would make such a decision. That is not appointment or usurpation. That is the expression of opinion.

  11. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 8:27 pm

    Employees would choose a lot of things, things which a lot of employers do not offer.

    And some employers may say that they refuse to accept the less revealing screening from the insurance company and demand their more invasive screening.

    Maybe such an employer would go out of business, or maybe these invasive employers who conduct their more intimate screenings may command more market share and influence and refusing to work for them can have bad consequences, so applicants submit to their demands. Or they may live in an area where the major employers all insist upon more invasive screenings and if you want to work in town, you must submit to that, or otherwise leave town to find work. And as we have seen with the rise of corporate espionage and employee surveillance, employers sometimes crave intimate information about their employees.

  12. Durasim
    September 5th, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

    All people face that treatment in one way or another, not just persons with disfavored sexualities. People refuse to associate or let their children associate with other people because of their religion or political beliefs or sexuality. I believe that people have the right to not associate with people or bar people from their private spaces for whatever reason or no reason. That means people can exclude me for any reason or no reason, and I can do the same. I have the right and the other guy has it too. Neither me nor the other guy has to wait until we have evidence of a crime.

    But while we are on the subject of people who are sexually attracted to children, so of them do admit that they should not be around children or have children under their supervision, for both their safety and the children’s safety. That is a sensible concession.

  13. robertstacymccain
    September 5th, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

    The question of statistical prevalence would be interesting to know, but is in some ways irrelevant. I do not doubt that most victims of sexual abuse by coaches and teachers involves girls abused by males. But sexual abuse by females in positions of trust — regardless of whether their victims are girls or boys — contradicts the common assumption that women “aren’t like that,” and that women can therefore always be trusted with the care and supervision of minors.

    And the media have a HUGE blind spot toward same-sex abuse, which is never labeled “gay” or “lesbian” because …
    Well, why? It is simply that the media have become public-relations agents for homosexuality, and therefore don’t want to encourage “prejudice” — because, as everybody knows FACTS are the New Hate.

  14. The Varsity Rape Team : The Other McCain
    September 7th, 2014 @ 9:41 am

    […] bloggers didn’t notice that story, for some reason. And they don’t care about lesbian coaches molesting girls, […]