Court Issues Unbelievably Stupid Sex Crime Ruling
| February 21st, 2007Every time I think I’ve seen the limit on how screwed up this country is about sex, we retop ourselves. Case in point (via the Agitator):
On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified “sexual behavior.” The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber’s house to Jeremy’s personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.
Court records don’t say exactly what happened next–perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm–but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.
Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
So for that, they will for the rest of their lives be registered sex offenders. (Or maybe not - see comments.)
Amber appealed, claiming that this application of an anti-child-pornography law to her taking private photos of a perfectly legal encounter with her boyfriend violated her right to privacy (which is guaranteed in the Florida constitution). Earlier this month, a Florida Appeals Court ruled against Amber. The majority decision, written by Judge James Wolf, hinged on whether or not Amber could have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she emailed the pictures to Jeremy’s personal email address. According to Wolf, she could not have had any such reasonable expectation of privacy, because maybe she or Jeremy would have decided to show them to other people at some point in the future, and anyway the internet can be hacked.
No, really. That was his reasoning. And that’s not even the stupid part.
Here’s the stupid part: Judge Wolf argues that the conviction must be upheld so that Amber and Jeremy can be spared trauma and smeared reputations.
Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minor’s careers or personal lives.
Try to grasp the jaw-dropping illogic in all its nonsensical glory:
1) Amber is “simply too young to make an intelligent decision.” But she’s not too young to be a held responsible for the crime of child pornography.
2) The state must prosecute Amber in order to protect her from psychological trauma. Because being tried and found guilty of a sex crime is obviously the least traumatic option for Amber here.
3) If the pictures were someday released, that might have hurt Amber and Jeremy’s careers or personal lives. So instead the court permanently brands them as convicted sex offenders, which in no way could potentially harm their careers and relationships in the future.
Sheesh!
(Curtsy: Julian Sanchez.)
February 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am
This shit just has me seething with rage. When I describe myself as sex-positive, fighting bizarre reactionary anti-sex anti-humanity anti-empathy anti-rationality rulings like this is what I mean.
Teenagers are sexual creatures, no matter how much we as a culture want to pretend they’re not. We simultaneously sexualize them and express horror and shock at the idea that they’re actually having sex. Grown women are made to look like teenage girls for sexual titillation, but actual teenage sexuality is verboten. It’s ultra-dysfunctional. It’s schizophrenic.
Someone once said that our entire country is like Brother Justin from the HBO show Carnivale, secretly watching his sister undress, then flogging himself bloody for hours. It’s just in this case, we’re flogging these kids.
I’d also like to toss in a big thank you to all the folks who support every anti-child porn initiative/anti-sexual predator initiative that comes down the pike and ignore every one of us who warned all along that they were too broadly written and draconian and that this kind of thing would be the result.
God, these poor kids. Just imagine that in many parts of the country, they wouldn’t be allowed to be around kids their own age, live near the schools they attend, will have to register for the rest of their lives everywhere they go, will have to tell their future employers, etc. Honestly, I’m not even sure how they’ll attend school! They may have to study at home or something. Every single initiative we’ve passed over the past decade for the purposes of keeping ‘The Perverts’ away from our children now applies to two kids who were fooling around with each other (as I’m sure most of us did when we were their age). Every. Single. One.
Right now it may not actually be as much of a big deal, because when you’re 17, 18, 19, you can just explain what happened, and maybe you’ll get some understanding or sympathy . . . but what about when you’re 35, and nobody wants to listen to your explanation, because in their eyes you’re just a creepy child molester that they don’t want living near their kids? What about when you’re 50? What about when you have kids of your own? Hey, will a future ex-spouse be able to use this to take custody of the kids away?
This makes me literally physically ill.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
I suspect the subtext of the majority’s argument is the desire to make laws against teen porn enforceable. In the internet age, proving production and possession of porn may be much easier than proving distribution and sale. If the court finds that it’s legal for teenagers to film themselves engaging in sex and possessing such films, then pornographers might be able to exploit this fact to their advantage.
Prosecutor: I charge you with producing child porn.
Defendant: I’m merely a teenager recording a private moment with my teen lover.
Prosecutor: Why did you sell access to these documents?
Defendant: I didn’t. I intended them to be private. And I have no idea how all those people learned the password to my e-mail account.
Prosecutor: Why haven’t you removed the porn from your e-mail account?
Defendant: It’s not porn! It’s a private moment. And the courts have ruled that it’s perfectly legal for me to keep it in my private account. The fact that others may breach the account’s security is not my problem. Rather, it’s yours.
Prosecutor: How can a teenager like you afford a car?
Defendant: I have always relied on the kindness of strangers; is that a crime? Look, we need to hurry this up cuz I’ve got a lot of homework….
A judge may be disinclined to admit that he’s sacrificing the interests of a couple of teenagers to promote the (perceived) interest of society generally, but that’s what the decision looks like to me.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
If so, then in my opinion the judge was wrong. The reason we have juries and judges is exactly to make determinations like this: “Is this witnesses claim to have not intended this for distribution credible?”
It’s better to trust that a jury will be able to distinguish between a case like Amber and Jeremy, and a case described in your dialog, than it is to decide we should punish Amber and Jeremy despite their innocence so that we’ll be better able to punish a hypothetical teen child-porn distributor in the future.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Not only that, but I also think a distinction needs to be made between ‘naked pictures featuring a 16 year old boy in a sexual situation’ and ‘naked pictures featuring a 5-year old boy in a sexual situation’. I don’t think adults should be buying/selling/etc either of them, of course, but the blanket ‘child porn’ bugs the hell out of me, because they’re very different things.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
This is also a good example of why it’s stupid and ineffective to get all worked up over how many perverts the sex offenders register lists in your neighborhood.
You don’t know how many of them are Ambers and Jeremys, or similar people, and while you’re obsessing over them and their addresses, your uncle or pastor is far more likely to be molesting your kids.
Gah.
This comment was written by Kristin.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:33 pm
The other part of this that really bugs me relates to something John Coffee said in The Green Mile:
Why do we insist on taking something lovely and shitting all over it? There are no guarantees that these two had some sort of fairytale ‘eternal-love’ thing going on, of course, but we’ve taken the affection they have or had for one another and turned it into a weapon to hurt them with.
That’s obscene.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Maybe the next Governor will pardon them. This asshole certainly won’t — the Bush family believes is forgiveness for me but not for thee.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I know it’s different for different states, but the sex offender registry site here lists each offender’s charges. I skimmed through it when I moved, and there were definitely a few who were charged with some approximation of being 18 and having a 17 year old girlfriend (which is maybe even stupider than this ruling). Many, if not most, were violent, coercive crimes involving breaking into homes or duping unsuspecting parents. The problem is that they’re all listed together, so unless you’ve got the time to look through all the individual records, it all looks the same. And many states don’t put the information up at all.
Now that I’ve typed all that, it obviously makes more sense to fix the sex crime laws than to reorganize the database, but at least having the charges specified would give some leniency to people in the position of these kids. Poor kids.
This comment was written by defenestrated (/trillian).Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Thomas, Jeb Bush is no longer the governor of Florida.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Since they were both underage, they can’t be prosecuted for their act of sex, but they were prosecuted for taking pictures of that act of sex.
If the judge gets away with this, I blame the parents in that community for not taking up protests and other acts of civil disobedience.
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Amp,
Where’s the info that they would be listed on the sex offender registry? Normally, someone tried and convicted as a juvenile is NOT listed as a criminal, in any form including sex offender registries, once they are 18. (That’s why “being tried as an adult” is a very severe penalty.) (My wife worked as a teacher in the JJ system at one time; a significant number of her students had been convicted as juveniles of sexual crimes, but that did not go on permanent criminal records.)
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Sam,
It appears I screwed up, frankly. Thanks for catching that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Okay, so if they’re not going to be listed on the Sex Offender registry, that’s certainly much better.
The whole case is still utter bullshit, but at least it won’t necessarily ruin the entire rest of their lives.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
This is really horrid for both of them.
Still, I’m not totally comfortable with this whole response. Isn’t it just an emotional reaction because we like Amber and Jeremy? If one of them were 40 we’d want them locked up and the key thrown away. If you want photos like this to be illegal, then should it really matter if we like whoever’s involved or not when it comes to passing judgement? Deep down part of me feels the law should be impersonal and objective, and we shouldn’t want people we feel sympathy for treated in one way and people we dislike treated in another. That’s just arbitrary.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
If one of them were 40, we almost certainly wouldn’t be having this discussion. None of us know Amber and Jeremy, or even know their real names, so likability doesn’t enter into it. Their ages are the relevant factor here. Consenting peers privately documenting a consensual moment is not at all the same thing as an adult exploiting a kid. Prosecuting the former under laws targeting the latter isn’t being impersonal and objective, it’s ignoring either the facts of the case, the spirit of the law, or both.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
What the hell is wrong with these people? I had no idea that “child pornography” was a crime if the “child” in question is yourself, and you and your partner are the only ones who are ever (supposed to) see it.
Next thing they’ll be arresting adolescent boys for masturbating with the charge that they were committing child molestation …
This comment was written by Eva Key.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“Where’s the info that they would be listed on the sex offender registry? Normally, someone tried and convicted as a juvenile is NOT listed as a criminal, in any form including sex offender registries, once they are 18. (That’s why “being tried as an adult” is a very severe penalty.) (My wife worked as a teacher in the JJ system at one time; a significant number of her students had been convicted as juveniles of sexual crimes, but that did not go on permanent criminal records.)”
I think it depends on the state’s statutes. I was doing a research paper in law school 2 or 3 years ago on juveniles who sexually offend, and I had a couple of articles on kids under 18 who were put on their states’ sex offender registry list once they turned 18.
And I agree with defenestrated–this ruling goes against the intent of the law. If there was a statutory rape law making it a crime for anyone to have sex w/someone under 18, we wouldn’t criminalize two 16 year-olds having consentual sex (or maybe this judge would). The point is that the intent of the law is to protect children from older, predatory adults. When two people who are the subject of the law it intends to protect engage in that activity, the purpose of the law is not furthered by their criminalization.
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Right. What you’ve said just there is exactly the problem in every single way. Good job locating it.
The real problem here is the attitude that if we ‘really want’ X to be illegal, we need to abandon every single ounce of nuance, context, or common sense.
It’s the same attitude that’s lead to ‘zero tolerance drug policies’ that prohibit kids from consuming Tylenol at school, ‘zero tolerance sexual harassment policies’ that prohibit kindergarteners from hugging one another, and ‘the war on drugs’ keeping marijuana out of the hands of AIDS patients.
No method is too extreme, no penalty too overblown. As long as our goal is safety, we can do whatever the hell we want to whoever the hell we want. The ends are all. The means are immaterial.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Well that’s rather the point. I don’t think anyone wants pictures like this to be illegal. This wasn’t child porn, this wasn’t a photo of a molestation, this wasn’t a photo of an act that is barred by statute. This wasn’t a case of any kind of exploitation. People engaging in a consensual sex act took photos of that act for their own personal use. Why on earth should that be illegal?
This comment was written by Dreama.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I don’t see a single reason why photos of entirely consensual, legal sexual relations kept for personal use should be illegal. Horrifying thought.
This comment was written by Kristin.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:31 am
It’s the same attitude that’s lead to ‘zero tolerance drug policies’ that prohibit kids from consuming Tylenol at school, ‘zero tolerance sexual harassment policies’ that prohibit kindergarteners from hugging one another, and ‘the war on drugs’ keeping marijuana out of the hands of AIDS patients.
Or a “zero tolerance weapons policy” that threatens to get a kid who has a neckerchief slide in his backpack that’s made out of an expended shotgun shell expelled.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 am
everything in this entry makes my frelling brain ACHE. This in just insanity. I don’t even have the wherewithal to properly address the crazy because it is so crushingly crazy. I need to lie down.
This comment was written by the angry black woman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 am
The ruling is bad. Horrible.
BUT.
But I hasten to remind folks that a big part of why we have “no discretion” policies is because discretion is commonly used in a non-neutral manner.
Take the old ederal mandatory sentencing guidelines. Were they too harsh? Yup. Did they do a lot to reduce the disparity between white and black defendants? Yup.
So, let’s imagine this with “discretion” analysis, using two hypotheticals:
1) two white kids who email each other nude pictures; and
2) a black boy and white girl (poor, no computers) who take nude polarids.
Anyone want to bet they’d be the same result? Anyone? The problem with too much discretion is that it creates inequality under the law, which is a horrible thing.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
@DJ:
“And I agree with defenestrated–this ruling goes against the intent of the law. If there was a statutory rape law making it a crime for anyone to have sex w/someone under 18, we wouldn’t criminalize two 16 year-olds having consentual sex (or maybe this judge would). The point is that the intent of the law is to protect children from older, predatory adults.”
I’m not an expert on this subject, DJ, but I think in fact the “intent” of the law was to do no more, and no less, than “[make] it a crime for anyone to have sex w/ someone under 18″. Many of these laws, perhaps most of them, do not recognize the age of the offender. It follows quite literally that if two people under 18 have sex, we now have two sex offenders. I was completely thunderstruck when I first found out that such laws exist, are articulated in the bare-bones manner you describe and therefore apply to an offender regardless of age. Apparently, some states do have “Romeo and Juliet” laws, that limit the application of the statutory laws in cases such as these.
Not to defend laws such as this, but when you think about it, it seems impossible that they could be articulated any other way. Sexual offenses _are_ committed on kids under the age of 18 by other kids under the age of 18. Even without this concern, for the law to try to make exceptions based on age seems a slippery slope. When is the difference in age big enough? I’d be staggered if anyone anywhere has any feasible idea on that. To my inexpert thinking, these laws thus seem like ones which don’t need to exist; isn’t it enough that it is illegal to rape? Don’t these laws just create a class of people who can’t legally have sex? But I don’t know the genesis of them; perhaps there is some valid reason behind their existence, and even their implementation.
Something else that hasn’t been mentioned here, or at least not so explicitly, is that these suits are usually (if not always, or maybe it’s merely often - as I said, not an expert) brought by the parents of one of the teenagers. Remember that the teens are not actually adults yet; they are the wards of their parents and their parents have the power to make the decisions. While Judge Wolf is clearly extraordinarily lacking in compassion and understanding, his hands might be tied somewhat in that (I believe - someone correct me if I’m wrong) he might not legally be allowed to take the children’s testimonies into account. My point is that, the judge notwithstanding, the children are completely unable to have any control over the proceedings; but the alternative, giving them that control, would be to give children some kind of adult status, which is another thing that seems to me impossible to articulate in law; they can’t be both adults and not adults. (Though actually that is often what teenagers are.) Even if such a thing could be done in the eyes of the law, the parents would never, ever stand for it. Or there would be too many against it to ignore.
Recently I read of a case against a teenage boy on Reddit, the boy somehow had charges brought against him for owning child pornography on some yahoo account or other. The evidence was paper thin or non-existent, but the prosecutor wanted that sex offender statistic under his belt, and wouldn’t let up. The judge in that case had the sense to question the goals of the prosecutor and was instrumental in getting the charge reduced to that of showing another boy a Playboy magazine. It was completely absurd but at least he wasn’t burned with the mark of Cain.
This comment was written by sparkane.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
In fact, Sparkane, in Florida it’s perfectly legal for an 18 year old and a 16 year old to have consensual sex. It’s only larger age gaps that are illegal.
In fact, it’s common for statutory rape laws to make exceptions when the people having sex are close in age to each other. I’m not sure if there are any states in which the statutory rape laws don’t include such an exemption.
That doesn’t mean that non-statutory rapes are legal if the ages are close, of course.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Re Sparkane “My point is that, the judge notwithstanding, the children are completely unable to have any control over the proceedings; but the alternative, giving them that control, would be to give children some kind of adult status, which is another thing that seems to me impossible to articulate in law; they can’t be both adults and not adults.”
That’s exactly the point of juvenile delinquency courts–children break the law but are treated differently because of their status as juveniles. We can’t hold them to the same standard as adults because their brains are not the same as adults, but we can’t ignore that they have broken the law in some way. And children do, to a certain extent, have some “control,” if you want to call it that, over the proceedings in that they are entitled to attorneys, can speak in court, etc. Granted, there are serious deficiencies with the current state of juveniles’ rights in the legal system, but to say that they are completely at the whim of the state and given any control whatsoever would put them into adult status, is inaccurate.
And I’ll echo Amp’s notation on the statutory rape laws. I’ve worked in the legal system in 3 states now, and all of the states I’ve been in have had provisions for children under 18 having sex with each other, with varying ranges of acceptable age differences. Most states also have “tender years” notations for increased punishments, for those who have sex with children presumed incapable of consenting under any circumstances (say, 8 years old).
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’d have a hard time believing that many states mandate that no one may lose their virginity before the age of 18, which would be the result if statutory rape laws were uniformly phrased in such a way that
Although, if teenage sex were outlawed, it would at least shut up a few of the purity proselytizers. ;)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I’d also add that juvenile courts tend to allow judges more discretion in deciding the best course of action to take on each case, so the judge’s hands are anything but tied. A judge can choose to throw out a case because he or she believes that the child will not be best benefitted by a criminal case, or he or she can throw the book at the kid, to teach ‘em a little tough love (which tends to happen a lot when you’re dealing with school fights, graffitti, etc. in urban neighborhoods, since judges often think they’re saving kids from themselves). In every state I’ve worked, judges in delinquency courts are to balance the best interests of the child with the interests of society (translation: punishment of said child for the safety of the community). Here, the judge says he is punishing the children in their best interests, so I suppose that is a “balancing test,” but just not a very reasonable one, in my opinion.
And, on a separate note, children are frequently seen as adults in some contexts of the law, and as children in others. In one state where I worked, a child could be prosecuted as an adult for crimes at 16, even though they were considered too young to buy cigarettes, which was 18. Similarly, in that same state, at 16, they were still considered children in the eyes of the dependency court, even though they could be prosecuted in adult court for criminal offenses they were alleged to have committed. There are hundreds of inconsistencies in our laws. We have laws to protect kids under the notion that children are too young and without the necessary knowledge and life experiences to take care of themselves, so we need dependency courts and social workers to look over them. Yet somehow, if a crime is committed by someone within this same age range, they’re old enough to have known better, so they should pay the price and be locked up to the same extent as an adult would be. It still shocks me that it was only until a couple of years ago that capital punishment of people under 18 was considered cruel and unusual punishment.
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
In Florida, if the elder participant is under 24, then that person may legally have sexual relations with a person who is at least 16. If the elder participant is 24 or older, then the younger partner must then be at least 18.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that the primary purpose of the state’s age of consent laws is to protect minors from the sexual exploitation of adults. They ruled that the Florida Constitution’s right of privacy gives minor children the right to have consensual sexual relations with other minors.
https://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/83712/op-83712.pdf
This comment was written by Megalodon.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Oh, and one more thing before I actually get back to the work I should have been doing all day, haha–
This comment was written by DJ.I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the mothers (probably the girl’s) reported this. That is how a lot of the grey area stat rape cases come to court (16 year old dating 19 year old type stuff); at least that’s what it’s been in my experience. But that also brings up the point that parents need to *parent* their kids. While the court can and does play parens patriae, the parent needs to do their job first instead of using the legal system as a sword. If a parent finds out their child is taking naughty pictures or having sex and that upsets them as a parent, then they should go have a chat with their kid about the birds and the bees, ground aforementioned kid for a few weeks, and then call the other kid’s parents to voice their displeasure or try and come up with some sort of mutually agreeable solution. IMO.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
To clear up a few misconceptions: I don’t know what the law is in Florida, but it is now perfectly legal to list convicted juveniles on sex offender registries in many states and on the federal level. Some states moved to allow these listings before the federal government did (my state, Wisconsin, pioneered the change in law) but the federal government last year also legalized the listing of juveniles on SORs, including the new comprehensive federal SOR. Here in Wisconsin, the state SOR lists juvenile offenders the same as it does adult offenders–with photos, addresses, names, crimes, etc. The model law pioneered by Wisconsin and eventually adopted at the federal level carries (as per usual) the name of a young girl who was victimized–in this case by a juvenile male offender. I can’t recall the name of the law (Sarah’s?) but all the sex-crimes-statutes-named-after-young-girls start to blur together at some point, you know?
Furthermore, although some states have “Romeo and Juliet” clauses in their statutory rape laws to prevent prosecutions of willing, consensual sex between teen peers, many do not. Regrettably, one of those most notorious for lacking such a reasonable and compassionate exception is, again, my state of Wisconsin. Here, the AOC is 18 but the law makes a commonsensical distinction by making sex with someone over 16 but under 18 a misdemeanor; sex with someone under 16 is a felony. However, without a R&J exception, a willing 17 yo boy AND a willing 17 yo girl who have sex with each other can BOTH be prosecuted with misdemeanor sexual assault of a minor. Similarly, a willing 15 yo boy and willing 15 yo girl who have sex with each other can BOTH be prosecuted for FELONY sexual assault of a minor. To me, this is the very picture of insanity, but that’s the law here and in numerous other states. There have been a number of notorious cases here in Wisconsin of such dual prosecutions of teens for willing, consensual sexual conduct–almost always instigated by one set of angry parents (who don’t seem to realize that their own child could/will be swept up in the criminal case, too). These cases have resulted in convictions and substantial penalties–jail time, probation, SO counseling, SO registration, etc. As outrageous as this all is, what irritates me even more about it is that the boys almost always receive far harsher sentences than the girls, for exactly the same behavior–but that’s a topic for another rant at another time ;)
Then again, it appears the same thing happened here–the boy was additionally charged with possession of child pornography–a very serious felony that is increasingly harshly punished. If either of them suffers irreperable life harm from this case, it will be Jeremy, not Amber.
It’s injustice and insanity like this that will increasingly result from America’s new moral panic/mass hysteria/witch hunt about sex offenders. These laws, as Myca so eloquently pointed out in earlier comments, are seriously overbroad and black-and-white, and because of the witch hunt hysteria in this country surrounding sex offenses, prosecutors, juries, and judges seem incapable of the reasonable, fair, nuanced, and compassionate application of these laws to effect a judicious result. Add to that the increasingly punitive SOR listings and restrictions (like the nutty GA law that said SOs couldn’t live within 2000 feet of a park, school, bus stop, etc.–in effect, the state’s SOs had to leave the state or go into self-exile in some remote, unpopulated area) and you have a crazy, unsustainable system that is approaching critical mass. Hell, in many states men are listed on the SOR for indecent exposure–and some of those cases merely involved public urination! Any society that feels it’s just for a man who urinates in public to be listed as a SO on a public website for 10-20 years is a society with some serious screws loose upstairs.
Sorry to go off on a rant, but this country’s attitudes about sex and sex crimes and punishment and shaming and the like are a HUGE pet peeve of mine. True rapists and child molesters deserve serious punishment, but meanwhile we spend time and resources crushing people like the kids in this story. Ugh.
That was meant as a joke, but it’s deadly serious. Until fairly recently, masturbation, even if done in private, COULD be criminally prosecuted in many states. I remember reading accounts of teen boys who’d been prosecuted for masturbation (not public indecency–these were cases of private masturbation that were incidentally and unintentionally witnessed by someone else) in CALIFORNIA, as late as the late 1960s. I’m not making this up.
Myca, I simply adored all of your comments on this thread. Thank you, thank you! I especially loved this:
Brilliant, and very eloquently stated! **Hugs**
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Two things:
To clarify my point in my first comment #31 that teen boys tend to be more harshly punished than teen girls in dual statutory rape prosecutions of consensual peer sexual activity as can and have happened in states like Wisconsin, this is usually the case even if both teens go to trial and are convicted, or if they both plead out. More commonly, however, is a situation in which both teens are arrested but then the girl is coerced into turning state’s witness against the boy for a sweetheart plea deal or even for immunity from prosecution. The already patronizing nanny state attitudes that regard all teens who engage in sexual activity as victims, even if the activity was consensual and with another teen, are thus made worse by a patriarchal attitude that regards the teen girls as always the bigger victims than teen boys, even if they were engaging in the same activity. This approach allows prosecutors to go soft on the girls or even dismiss charges against them, while twisting their arms to get them to cooperate in an effort to “throw the book” at the boys. Utterly repulsive behavior like this appears to now be SOP among prosecutors around the country. So much for the impartial application of “justice”! What a joke!
One other point about sex offender registries: Earlier commentors noted that some states list the crimes of the registered SOs so that it can be (at least in theory) easier to separate the true predatory threats (violent rapists, serial child molesters, etc) from guys who at age 19 had sex with their 17 yo girlfriends and the like. That is somewhat true, but undermined by the use of generic criminal nomenclature in some states. Here in Wisconsin, for example, there is sexual assault (1st-4th degrees) and sexual assault of a minor (of several degrees as well). We don’t use archaic, but more accurately descriptive, terms such as “child molestation” or “statutory rape.” A juvenile SO listed on the SOR will be listed as convicted of sexual assault of a minor. That could mean consensual sex with another minor of like age; it could mean the violent rape of a pre-pubescent child. Without being experts on the law, or wading through the statutes for clarification, or doing extensive research on the SO’s particular case, the average John or Jane Q. Public who encounters such a listing during a search of SOs in his/her neighborhood won’t know. S/he will simply think, “Justin down the block was convicted of sexually assaulting a child! Well, he’d better not come anywhere near MY child! I’m going to warn her to stay away from his house, and him, right now! I wonder if the other neighbors know? Maybe I should tell all of them, too.” Clearly (to me at least) this is not a fair or just situation, but what the hell do I know?
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
You’re absolutely right, and I think the zero-tolerance-type policies have a lot to do with how often we hear rape apologists say something like, “but we’re ruining his good name!” Cases like this one make it true that *sometimes* people who didn’t really do anything wrong are unfairly punished, which makes it easier to argue that it’s happening either in a particular case or across the board.
It’s important to distinguish between actual harm and hypothetical slippery slope harm or a semantic resemblance to something harmful (e.g. the passing similarity between kids taking headache drugs and taking drug-drugs, or private nude pictures and exploitative nude pictures), and unfortunately in many cases the law doesn’t make that distinction. I’m not sure how to propose that it would without opening up a bazillion new slippery slope hypotheticals, though.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 6:24 am
when you think about it, it seems impossible that they could be articulated any other way. Sexual offenses _are_ committed on kids under the age of 18 by other kids under the age of 18.
Um, sexual offenses are also committed by legal adults on other legal adults: if a 29-year-old man can rape a 35-year-old woman, does that mean that sex between people of those ages should be “zero tolerance”? You are confusing sex with assault.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I think Sparkane makes a really strong point. The specific ’sexual offense’ we’re talking about is sexual exploitation by predatory individuals - not generic assault. Adults do this to children, and it’s made illegal by these laws. But the problem is that children are also exploited by predatory children too (and it happens much more frequently than exploitation by adults, people are just loathe to admit it). And if you enact a romeo and juliet law you’re not providing children with any protection from this, which is just vile.
I have a similar problem when these provisions are justified on the basis of the ‘power’ adults have. When I was this age the people who had the most power over me were members of my peer group - who could make my life absolute hell - not random 30-year olds. If you think this behavior is wrong it seems inconsistent to want to protect kids from it when adults do it, but not when children do.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Excellent point, but that’s precisely where prosecutorial and judicial discretion come into play. It is these “gray area” cases or cases where the letter of the law might have been violated but not the spirit of the law, or where there was no actual harm done, where prosecutors and (to a lesser extent) judges have an obligation to stand up for justice and not prosecute a case if by doing so there’s a strong possibility of an even more unjust outcome. But it’s precisely in these areas of discretion that our system so frequently breaks down, and it’s these areas that have been so throroughly undermined by both legislative changes and a “tough on crime” mentality that tells prosecutors that their conviction rates are more important than seeking justice, and tells judges that staying on the bench thanks to imposing unduly harsh penalties is better than seeking justice as well.
Not true. A teen sexually exploiting another teen in a nonconsensual way could (and should) still be prosecuted, Romeo & Juliet exception or not. The R&J exception only says that teens of like age who are beneath the AOC cannot be prosecuted for willing, consensual, private sex with each other–that is, no force, no violence, no coercion, no exploitation, no intimidation, etc. If it’s an assaultive or exploitative encounter, the perp can still be prosecuted. The R&J exception isn’t some blanket “get out of jail free” card for teens who would sexually abuse or exploit other teens!
In the case that started this discussion, there was no coercion or exploitation so there was no prosecution for the sex itself, merely for the photo documentation of the sex and emailing the pics. I still don’t agree with the prosecution, but had those kids not taken pics of their intimacy, ipso facto there’d be no legal case against them.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I think we’re talking past each other - I’m not talking about “a teen sexually exploiting another teen in a nonconsensual way”. Non-consensual exploitation is illegal, I get that, R&J exemptions don’t mater. It’s illegal if you do it to adults, it’s illegal if you do it to children.
The question at issue here is consensual exploitation. Laws of the sort we’re talking about here are enacted to stop predatory adults exploiting consenting children. Exploiting nonconsenting children is already a crime. My complaint is that if you enact a R&J exemption, you’re not criminalising consensual exploitation by other children, and you’re leaving children unprotected.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I do see what Nik means (I think). It’s easy to imagine (or recall) exploitative relationships that are nonetheless not illegal. For instance, sex based on unfair emotional pressure (”if you really loved me you’d have sex with me”), or sex based on a desire for social status, would be two examples of exploitative but legally consensual sex.
But not everything that is wrong can be legislated against. Unless we outlaw sex entirely, I don’t see any way of outlawing all possible instances of exploitative sex.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Yes, we may be talking past one another. What precisely do you mean by “consensual exploitation” of a teen by another teen? If you’re referring to a teen taking nudie pics of another teen (consensually) and then distributing those pics to third parties, say via the Internet, then that distribution would be illegal EVERYWHERE for violating child porn laws, regardless of whether or not said distribution was done with the consent of the teen who was photographed. Whether or not the state has a R&J exemption clause would be irrelevant in that case. But the case we’re talking about here is where pics were taken but presumably only for the private viewing pleasure of the teens involved themselves–at least it doesn’t appear to have been proven, or even claimed, that the pics were intended to be distributed to third parties. So how exactly is that “exploitation”? If I take nude photos of my partner (with his consent) for my own private viewing pleasure, and no one else sees them or even knows they exist, am I exploiting him? Of course not. Same with these teens. If they used a webcam to record themselves having sex only to watch it privately later, with no one else involved, what’s your beef? Please don’t tell me you’re taking some ideological erotophobic stance that taking nude pics of a consenting intimate partner and then viewing those pics later in private is by its very nature exploitative. If so, that’s no definition of “exploitation” that I could support, and I think the vast majority of people would agree with me. Good grief. If you meant something else and I’ve misconstrued your post, please edify me :)
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Ampersand, I respectfully disagree. The 1st scenario you outlined in your post would constitute classic date rape or acquaintance rape scenario, wouldn’t it? If consent from one partner is refused and the other partner uses threats, intimidation, coercion, or undue emotional pressure to get the nonconsenting partner to acquiesce to sex, then don’t most feminists consider that a form of rape? And it could be punished accordingly. Same with nude pics–if one partner really didn’t want to pose for nude pics for the other and made that position clear, and the other partner pressured or cajoled the unwilling partner to participate anyway, then clearly there’s an exploitative and abusive situation at hand, and the law would still be able to deal with that. But the case highlighted in this thread doesn’t appear to fall into either of those scenarios at all. Both teens were adamant that what they did was consensual and private, no one was being exploited, and the pics were not intended to be broadcast far and wide. You’d have a very hard time convincing me (or most people, for that matter) that such a scenario is on some level exploitative.
And what exactly do you mean by “sex based on a desire for social status”? Isn’t ALL sex, at least in part, whether or not we want to admit it, based on a desire for social status? I could elaborate, but I don’t wish to drag this comment out ad nauseam ;)
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Thanks for your kind words, Chris!
In regards to the issue of legal-but-exploitative relationships, I see what you’re saying, Nik, but that’s the point . . . it’s legal.
The only way I can see that we would be able to outlaw legal-but-exploitative sex for underage folks is by outlawing all sex for underage folks. Similarly, the only way I can see that we would be able to outlaw legal-but-exploitative sex for legal adults is by outlawing all sex for legal adults.
Since I think both of these are ridiculous positions, I’m in favor of restricting obviously illegal sex (like rape) and sex that’s inherently exploitative (like between an adult and a teenager or child). I am not in favor of restricting consensual sexual acts between teenagers any more than I’m in favor of restricting consensual sexual acts between adults.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Let’s imagine Amy’s 15 and her boyfriend is 30. They consensually have sex. Should that be illegal? Absolutely. We want to stop predatory adults exploiting consenting children. She may well have consented, but we would worry that this isn’t in her interest and consent could have been achieved by manipulating her. All sorts of legal but unfair emotional pressures and manipulations could be brought to bear to get her to consent. We’d want to stop this.
Now let’s image Amber’s boyfriend is 15. Under a R&J exemption it would be legal for them to have consensual sex. Now the fact is that plenty of children are adept at using legal but unfair emotional pressures and manipulations to get people to consent to sex. We protect children from exploitation in this manner by adults, but R&J exemptions mean they’re not protected from other children. I worry that young girls are treated as fair game for pretty dubious behaviour, which we wouldn’t tolerate if the people who were doing it weren’t young boys. Why should we take this behavour seriously when if comes from adults, but dismiss it when the prepetrators are children?
But why? That behaviour wouldn’t be legal and we wouldn’t tolerate if it were from other people.
As an adult you’re exected to stick up for yourself (at least to some degree). Children do need protecting. Adults just aren’t as vulnerable.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Yeah, several of you touched upon the points I was trying to draw out:
What creates the right to state that someone doesn’t “know better”, once they’ve given certain consent (NOT coerced or badgered, which is another kettle of fish) to a peer?
Drawing the line at age doesn’t work, for various reasons — many of which have been brought up in this thread. More, it brings to mind a very old-fashioned way of looking at gender, in which women are assumed never to “know better”.
I’m sure many adults can name an incident in which they had sex with another adult, consensually, non-coercively, possibly many times, and regretted it later: because they hadn’t set their boundaries at the time of the sex, hadn’t known how to set their boundaries, had chosen different boundaries later, decided that something they’d thought was OK was not OK.
When I was younger, I indulged in mild sexual play with various people to whom I didn’t have much emotional connection. This was how I found out that I’m not really a fan of doing that sort of thing without a strong emotional connection. Thinking about some of those interactions makes me uncomfortable, but I was not coerced or pressured. I asked myself, at the time, if I wanted to be doing this stuff, and the answer was “I don’t know, let’s find out?”
I could still imply that the other people involved were exploiting my willingness, but it would be more accurate to say that I hadn’t reached a full awareness of what my sexual/emotional capacities were and weren’t — (which, as an aside, I only reached, and only could have reached, through exploring the areas I wasn’t sure about, so I ultimately don’t regret this experimentation.)
Please tell me again: how do you exploit someone without coercing them?
I’m not asking whether soft coercion is coercion. I’m asking how non-coercion is exploitation.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Nik, with all due respect you’re confusing and conflating different issues, and, dare I say, overthinking your point. First of all (and not to be pedantic about it), I recommend you open a dictionary and look up “exploitation”. To quote Mandy Patinkin in “The Princess Bride”: “I do not think this word means what you think it means.” The scenario you gave as an example, of the two 15 yo kids, is NOT a situation of exploitation. Badgering, cajoling, pressuring, threatening, intimidating or using other manipulative emotional means to overcome someone’s refusal to consent to sex, so that person gives in and has sex even though really not consenting in a legal, ethical, and meaningful sense, is a form of nonconsensual sex, and thus a form of sexual assault. On the other hand, if one teen consents to pose nude for pics taken by another teen on the understanding that the pics will only be viewed privately by the photographer, and the photographer then violates that trust by posting them on a public website or selling digital copies to dozens of online buyers, then we’re talking a case of exploitation. Not really the same thing.
Your analysis of the reasons behind outlawing adults having sex with underage teens even if those teens are willing also falls a bit short. It’s not just concern about “unfair emotional pressures and manipulations” as you said, but the truly threatening power and authority disparity that comes into play when considering (as you suggested) a 30 yo man having sex with a 15 yo girl. The power/authority disparity isn’t really an issue if you’re talking about teen peers, which is one of the justifications behind R&J exceptions.
Huh. It occurs to me that plenty of adults, male and female, at times use “unfair emotional pressures and manipulations” on each other in a sexual context. That sort of game isn’t exclusive to teens, it’s part and parcel of sex, period. Hell, it happens among adults and teens in non-sexual situations, too. All the time. We ARE talking about frail and complicated human beings here, aren’t we? The main issue is: Does the emotional pressure and manipulation go beyond garden variety, good-natured pleading or begging or pouting (selfish and irritating, to be sure, but not necessarily criminal) to truly coercive or threatening? If so, that’s where the law steps in.
Sigh. Here’s where I started to get a little annoyed. So I guess it’s simply inconceivable that the teen initiating sexual activity with another teen might actually be a girl? Or that the teen using “unfair emotional pressures and manipulations” in a sexual context might occasionally be a girl? Whatever. I just love it when I encounter implicit gender descriptions on feminist blogs that sound as if they could have been uttered by some refugee from the Victorian Era. Seriously, do you have any contact with teen girls? Lemme tell ya, they ain’t the blushing innocents of the 1880s, or even the 1950s for that matter. But you’re right, teen boys are by definition predators, and teen girls are by definition prey. No wonder the adult women charged with having sex with underage teen boys keep getting such ridiculously lenient punishments–clearly, being female, they’re all the actual victims of the predatory teen boys! I’d expect such an attitude from some right-wing Boss Hogg type judge in Dixie, so it’s always rather alarming to encounter similar sentiments on a progressive feminist blog! But I digress…
Essentially, Nik, you’re confusing exploitation for sexual assault, and sexual assault for annoying but legal forms of pleading; you’re assuming that only teens use and are susceptible to unfair and manipulative emotional tactics in re sexual matters; and you further assume that only boys use such tactics on girls. All of which I disagree with. On top of that, you’ve misread the intent of statutory rape laws AND of R&J exceptions to those laws. Adults who have sex with underage kids are by definition and common sense committing an abusive, exploitative act for a variety of reasons. It’s simply not the same for teen peers engaging in consensual sex, again for a variety of reasons (one big one is the mutual “experimentation” factor that cannot be used to excuse an adult having sex with a kid). Please do a little more thought on this topic.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
As I said, I see the problem you’re pointing to, nik, but I don’t think that there are any solutions that don’t cause more problems than they solve.
If we just make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 18, period, we’ll be making illegal many many consensual sexual relationships, and turning both the boys and girls in those underage relationships into statutory rapists.
If the act of having sex with someone who’s underage is illegal regardless of your age then it’s going to have to be equally illegal regardless of your gender. This raises the specter of a boy and girl who love each other, who had a perfectly lovely consensual relationship, who regret nothing, who were happy together, who are now both considered criminal rapists.
Personally, I find that unacceptable.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Ooh, ooh, you know what would go a long way towards reducing exploitative sex between teens (and, probably, adults too)?
Some decent sex ed.
“No baby I’ve used a condom every time. I just don’t want to use one with you. I’ve been tested and everything.”
This comment was written by defenestrated.“Um, you can’t be tested for the one that gives me cervical cancer. Glow in the dark or ribbed?”
Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Chris;
(1) I am not confusing sexual assault with annoying but legal forms of pleading. I think adults should be protected against sexual assault. I think children should be protected from sexual assault AND certain behaviour that falls short of sexual assault as well. You’re assuming I share your understand of what’s okay and what isn’t: I don’t, I don’t think it’s okay for children to be exposed to everything short of sexual assault.
(2) I am not assuming that only teens use and are susceptible to unfair and manipulative emotional tactics. I do, however, think adults can be expected to look after themselves - children deserve protections that adults don’t get. An analogy might help you understand: If I say I do not think children should be sent to work in mines, that does not mean I’m ‘assuming’ that only children work in mines.
(3) I am not assuming that only boys use such tactics on girls. I just worry about it happening to girls. There is a great deal of evidence that girls get involved in sexual activity younger than boys, unlike boys don’t do so for their own enjoyment so much as for social reasons, and regret it more than boys. That’s not an implicit gender description, it’s reality. I also don’t agree that because girls aren’t ‘blushing innocents’ they don’t deserve legal protection.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I said:
Or, put another way:
When I was 17, I was having sex with a girl who was also 17.
Do you believe I should have been legally punished for this? Why?
Do you believe she should have been legally punished for this? Why?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Nik,
In re your point #1: I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re tilting at windmills. What you propose is incredibly vague and ambiguous, subjective, and creates the mother of all slippery slopes (as if existing sexual assault law isn’t vague and ambiguous enough in some contexts!) Any actual law based on a proposal such as yours would rapidly lead to abuse and oppression by the multitudes of unenlightened people who fill police stations, DAs offices, and judicial benches. In short, your idea, while undoubtedly motivated by good intentions, is both impractical and unworkable and would open a door to major abuse, as Myca has repeatedly pointed out. Furthermore, I can’t resist the sneaking suspicion that your thoughts in this area are motivated (consciously or subconsciously) more by a squeamish sex-negative attitude than they are by a true desire to protect children from exploitation. I’m not sure what it is, I can’t put my finger on it precisely, it’s just a vibe I get from reading your posts.
In re your point #2: Children already receive plenty of protections in this society that adults don’t get. Seriously, do you have eyes and ears? Not to be flippant, but c’mon. The child-proofing of American society has been taken to an almost ridiculous degree, far more than other Western societies–and yet curiously our children still on average turn out worse than those in Western Europe, Canada, and Australia. Funny, that. Anyway, stop infantilizing teenagers. They’re hardly the innocents you make them out to be. In fact, I seem to recall junior high and high school having been a daily advanced course in how to maneuver, adapt, and survive a veritable snake pit of “unfair and manipulative emotional tactics.” Teens are hardly unaware of these things–as you yourself put it, they’re masters at using them–boys and girls.
In re your point #3: Now I’m even more annoyed than I was before. You realize that both boys and girls can be unfair to each other and manipulate each other, and yet you only worry about it happening to girls! I guess the boys are, what? Unfeeling, unthinking robots? Incapable of being hurt, used, abused? You feel that boys can only be mistreated by adults? Or that when boys are mistreated by their peers, especially girls, somehow it doesn’t affect them? It doesn’t count? And of course you trot out the references to all the vague, feeble studies over the years that haven’t really proved anything conclusively but yet that tend to reinforce age-old gender stereotypes (girls don’t have sex for their own pleasure! Nah, it’s only due to peer pressure and for social acceptance! they’re really miserable the whole time!) And am I to interpret your last sentence as calling for legal protections from sexual activity for teen girls but not for teen boys? ‘Cuz if not, that’s sure what it sounds like.
Honestly, are you for real? I’m not trying to be mean here, but to read such attitudes on what purports to be a progressive feminist blog makes my head spin in bewilderment. The attitudes you just expressed, especially those in point #3, are reactionary. I’m sorry, there’s no other way to put it. They could have come straight from the late 19th century, given the gender roles and stereotypes they directly, indirectly, or implicitly support. I’ll say this as clearly as I can: Your attitudes about teen sexuality are supportive of traditional patriarchy, plain and simple. Unfortunately, that’s all too common among many feminists: In an effort to fight patriarchal attitudes, too many feminists advance ideas that curiously end up reinforcing patriarchal attitudes. I’ve seen it time and again. It’s a pity.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 12:20 am
To get it out off the way, what I’m about to say isn’t to suggest that there shouldn’t necessarily be laws about 17 year olds and 30 year olds, because I can easily see how that could an exploitative relationship. Past a certain point, though, we can’t necessarily assume that x age difference = y amount of coercion. In theory, a lot of this could be taken care of by simply not getting the courts involved if neither partner feels that they have been harmed or taken advantage of (meaning, why the hell did Amber/Jeremy’s parents have to call the cops instead of Jeremy/Amber’s parents?), but I agree with what Chris is saying about tilting at windmills*. It’s just not feasible to legislate personal relationships, as appealing as some scenarios make it sound.
Having said all of that, and also with the concession that I was not an entirely normal teenager, I bring this up mostly to back up this part of what Chris just said, although I agree with pretty much all of the comment:
If there isn’t an irrelevant clause here this sentence sounds like a Montel Williams show title, but when I was 18, I was having sex with a guy who was 30. Was he in the wrong? Why/not?
If we had gotten involved when we first met, when I was 17 - should he have been legally punished? Why/not? In either case, why does a few months make such a huge difference?**
What if I mention that I initiated it (definitely the sex, arguably the relationship)? Was I still being exploited? Or, as I believed then and still do, was I avoiding the sea of “unfair and manipulative emotional tactics” my own age group seemed revel in?
[to be fair to the teenage population, it was also largely a matter of circle of friends; I spent most of my time with the people I did theater with, partly because it was really time-consuming; still, while I was by far the baby of the group, I never felt or was treated like it by anyone]
‘Cause I’ll tell you what about (upstanding, non-molestery) adults: they’ve already had plenty of sex. It’s not all that mysterious anymore. They’re willing to be patient because they know that sex comes and goes, and there will always be more sex down the road. Teenagers? Not so much. Age is in so many ways a cultural construct, and it’s easy to buy into stereotypes and forget how aware we actually were at what age. Here in my mid-twenties, I’ve had partners ten or more years older than me and still felt like I was dealing with little boys; I’ve also been with people younger than me who were more self-aware and insightful than anyone I’ve met of any age; I have elderly acquaintances who are whiny brats; I have friends in the just-shy-of-20 area who unsettle me a little with their old-soul-ness.
I’m sorry, I’ve been meaning to cut down on how often I personalanecdotalize on other people’s blogs, and had planned to keep all of that out of this thread, but it started to seem more pertinent with the last few comments.
*Plus, now I have Dream the Impossible Dream stuck in my head, but that’s my own fault for being a huge nerd
This comment was written by defenestrated.**I’m also reminded of my home state’s under-18 curfew; I never quite understood how the world was supposed to become magically more dangerous at 11 pm than it had been at 10:55.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Oh, and just so everyone’s totally clear on what this has to do with gender roles, and even though I’ve probably made it clear elsewhere, I’m female.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am
defenestrated: Thanks for the shout out! hehe And on a side note, I have to say that your screen name is one of my favorite words in the English language. Not sure why, but it just is. I’m a history major and a huge history buff–always have been. I remember first encountering the word when reading about the Thirty Years’ War. One of the longest and most destructive wars in history started largely because of a defenestration incident. The emissary of the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor to the Protestant rebels in Bohemia must have royally pissed them off, because during one of their negotiations, they grabbed him, picked him up, and proceeded to defenestrate him through one of the castle’s windows! I guess that was the 17th century way of saying “His Majesty’s demands are unacceptable!” LOL Well, when he heard of the insult to his envoy, the Emperor decided to respond with an army, and, well, at that point the war was on. So when a young boy (oh, yes, I’m male BTW, since my name is gender non-specific) I read that story and had no idea what defenestrated meant, so I looked it up. Cool! I’ve had a weird sentimental attachment to the word ever since :)
Sorry for that OT trip down memory lane…anyway, defenestrated, I will respond to your questions by saying, NO, IMO your 30 yo boyfriend was not abusing or exploiting you and should not have faced legal consequences, even if you were 17 at the time. I definitely have a minority view in re sex crimes legislation involving teens. I hesitate to go into it, because I’ve been accused in other discussions (cyber- and real world) of being a child molester, or at least an apologist for child molesters, because of these views. (Sigh) Seriously, people in this country have some whacked out views of sex. Anyway, here they are. Keep in mind that these are structured around willing, consensual, non-abusive or exploitative, non-coercive sex (isn’t it silly that I even have to add that caveat?) Clearly, no matter the ages involved, if the sex is coerced, forced, violent, abusive, or truly exploitative (not vaguely, subjectively exploitative as “nik” would have it in his comments) then the perp should be legally punished. OK, enough preamble. Here’s my ideal statutory rape statute:
1) The legal age of consent for all sexual activity would be 16. (Really, setting it at 18 is pretty silly. If a teen is old enough to independently pilot a multi-ton hunk of steel, plastic, and rubber down highways at lethal speeds, then he/she is old enough to get/give a handjob, to use merely one example).
2) Sexual activity between someone over age 16 and someone under age 16, but POST-PUBESCENT (defined in the law reasonably, but arbitrarily, as age 12 or 13 or older) would be a misdemeanor that would be punished by no more than 1 yr in jail and/or no more than 5 yrs probation, and subject to sex offender registration that would only be in the 5-10 yr range. There would also be a Romeo & Juliet provision that would exempt from prosecution a teen age 16 or older if the age difference is 3 yrs or less. So, for example, a 16 yo kid who had sex with a 13 yo kid wouldn’t be prosecuted, but could be if the other kid was 12. An 18 yo teen wouldn’t be prosecuted for sex with a 15 yo kid, but could be if the other kid was 13, etc. (This distinction with a cutoff at puberty takes into account the serious differences between post-pubescent and pre-pubescent children, and also the differences between adults who desire sex with post-pubescent but underage teens, and those classified as true pedophiles, who desire sex with pre-pubescent children. Psychology is well aware of these differences and approaches these situations differently; it’s time the law did so as well).
3) Sex between someone 16 or older and a PRE-PUBESCENT child (again, arbitrarily defined in the law as someone younger than 12 or 13) would be a felony (child molestation), punishable by prison time, probation, and lengthy SO registration, if not for life than at least for 20-25 yrs. However, since I’m not quite comfortable with treating a 16 yo kid the same as a 46 yo adult in this context, I think it reasonable to include language in the law that mitigates any punishment for a perp who’s still under the legal age of majority (i.e. age 16-18) but who has sex with a pre-pubescent kid. The law might also want to take into account that an 11 yo kid isn’t the same as a toddler, either, but then we might be writing too much complexity into it, and something like that might better be addressed at sentencing (discretionary sentencing ranges would still apply–no mandatories!)
I mentioned that I consider this proposed law “ideal” to me. Of course, I realize that it’s imperfect and would still allow for some injustices, but I think that’s true of any law seeking to address sexual misconduct. Incidentally, this law is much closer to what you’d find in places like Canada, the Netherlands, etc. but somewhat tempered by American attitudes, so it’s hardly some shocking “attack on the children”, although most people I’ve dicussed it with have reacted that way. I attribute that mostly to lingering Puritanism and the continued insistence on infantilizing teens in this country (see nik’s comments above for an illustration).
If anyone wants to debate these points with me, fine, but please please please don’t pull the child molester card on me. It’s not only grossly inaccurate and libelous, it’s awfully tiresome.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Right, I’m right there with you, defenestrated.
I think the logic works something like this:
We all agree (hopefully) that a 30 year old having sex with a 10 year old is inherently exploitative and should be illegal whether the 10 year old ‘consents’ or not.
We all agree (hopefully) that a 30 year old having sex with another 30 year old is not inherently exploitative and should be legal as long as the partner consents.
It’s the in-between cases that don’t offer easy solutions, and if we’re going to have a cutoff, of necessity, there will be cases within a couple years of the cutoff that the law doesn’t fit. Right now, the cutoff is 18, and while I think it ought to be probably be a year or two lower, I think it’s also worth recognizing that whatever the cutoff, there will be cases that don’t fit the law.
This is part of why I think Romeo & Juliet laws are important. Without R&J laws, if we set the cutoff at 18, there will be a 19 year old woman in a perfectly healthy relationship with a 17 year old man that we’ve just made a criminal. But still, if we lower the cutoff to 16, then there will be a 17 year old boy in a perfectly healthy relationship with a 15 year old girl that we’ve just made a criminal.
Luckily, we have these laws. Most places, anyhow.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
OOPS! Forgot two important provisions of my “model” child sex abuse law:
4) Consensual, non-coercive, non-exploitative sexual activity between two underage kids (i.e. under 16) who are BOTH post-pubescent (i.e. over age 12 or 13) would be exempt from all prosecution.
5) Similar sexual activity between two underage kids (again, under 16) would be eligible for prosecution if one of two conditions were met, either: A) One kid is post-pubescent while one is pre-pubescent, AND the age difference is greater than 3 yrs; or B) both kids are pre-pubescent AND the age difference is greater than 3 yrs. If neither of those conditions are met, no prosecution. If one of them IS met, the older child could face prosecution but ONLY in juvenile court, and with no penalty, including sex offender registration, to last beyond the age of majority (18).
OK, now I think it’s complete! LOL Again, comments are welcome, unless they’re abusive, accusatory, or libelous.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Chris, I had thought that at least a couple of leaders had been thrown out of a Bohemian window over the course of history, but I could very well be mistaken. I’m not entirely sure why I like the word so much, but thanks for noticing it. I think it partly came from the ‘don’t break any rules’ part of my college orientation, where the scary police dude told us how much trouble we’d be in for what. Not only did he use the word defenestrated about twenty times during his speech, he also gave the strong impression that it wouldn’t be a huge deal if you wanted to kill your roommate, but if you threw the corpse out the dorm window, you’d be in deep shit. It kind of became a joke among my friends and ended up stuck in my head…wait, what OT tangent? :D
I think that in my home state, the age of consent was in fact 16, so as far as I know there wouldn’t have been any illegality at 17 anyway, but that wouldn’t have been the case in most places. I’m from the midwest, and the aoc wasn’t as high as 16 until some time in the seventies (Ask my aunt who ran away and got married at 14). On the other hand, there was the threat of really bad publicity for our theater company, and our mutual friend the director regretfully asked my then-bf to step out for a while. I wasn’t aware until later that neither of them had realized that I had had a birthday during the off-season, or had put ‘votes,’ and ‘buys cigarettes’ together, so they still thought I was 17, but I’m not sure it would have made a ton of difference.
Also, Chris, you mention drivers’ licenses, and - maybe this isn’t happening elsewhere, but - I know some states do want to push the driving age up to 18. Because of course bad driving isn’t about being inexperienced, it’s about the special teenage microbes that disable young brains. Sure. Blink, and you’ll find that suddenly no one can buy liquor until 25. I really hope that as I get older, I don’t give in to what appears to be a st