There's no question who was being depicted in this case: 3 kids.

I won't comment on whether or not this was fair or not... The whole thing seems fishy, but the teacher herself plead guilty to the misdemeanor for whatever reason.. Anyway, my comment is more in response to whether or not kids are harmed by sexual content.. Your argument is basically that since the median age for first intercourse in the US is 17, claims of harm caused by sexual content must be exaggerated if not false. My response, however, would be that environmental influence - specifically media influence - results in the median age of first intercourse being what it is: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/11/03/. If this is the case, then the question is whether there is anything wrong w/ the median age being what it is - 17. The argument here turns on your view on sex. Is sex something to be valued, or is it simply to be used for pleasure between any number of persons and any number of times? For me, sex is something to be enjoyed only in marriage. When sex is permitted outside marriage, there is really nothing more to it than the act itself. You have people taking advantage of each other for a period of time for the sake of pleasure and nothing else. It does nothing to develop the relationship between two people. This is why I would posit that sex at 17 is harmful. Kids are getting involved in things that they don't understand will affect them the rest of their lives. Do you think that when one person has sex and then almost flippantly moves on to the next, the first partner doesn't get hurt in the process? Do you think the act of sex does not lead to any emotional bonds?