It’s been a couple of months since I last wrote a 1KWFFH. And even longer since I last wrote one about age and sex. So I thought it was time I did one again. Besides, this one is different.
Earlier today someone sent me a URL to a news story that was so ridiculous, so sad, so shocking, that I felt I would just have to expound upon it in my own special way. And so, without further ado, I give you 1000 words of free flowing hostility:
So I think my stance on victimless crimes is well documented. To summarize, I am pretty much of the opinion that without a victim there can be no crime. If no one got hurt or damaged or even inconvenienced in the breaking of said law, then why in the bloody blue hell is anyone wasting my tax dollars on prosecuting them. Now I do acknowledge that my politics are far from the standard fare. Maybe what I would spend tax dollars on is not necessarily what the majority of the people of our fine Commonwealth would spend those same funds on. Ok, granted. But I’ve just gotta believe that fixing the Jay-Zdamn pothole in the middle of the street (which street? This is Pittsburgh, fucking all of the streets) that my truck falls into anytime I drive anywhere is a hell of a lot more important than prosecuting some 15 year old girl for deciding to take naked pictures of herself.
Let me get this straight? A girl takes pictures of herself masturbating and she is arrested for child molestation. WHAT THE FUCK?!?! Ok, I don’t know for sure how many times I masturbated before I was of legal age, but I’m gonna just go out on a limb here and estimate that I was “guilty of child abuse” oh… I don’t know, lets say 15,123,345,562,127 times over the course of the first eighteen years of my life, and without getting too into my own personal life, lets just say I’m probably a little guilty of self-rape in the twelve years since.
Ok, yes,I sort of understand the possession of child pornography charge. It’s ludicrous, but at least it’s technically true. And it’s certainly true that she disseminated child pornography. But she did not sexually abuse a child. In the state of Pennsylvania, a 15 year old can legally have sex with anyone over the age of 13 and up to the age of 19. At most, one could claim she was having sex with herself and since she’s in that age range those charges should simply be thrown out, as they don’t make any sense at all.
Now onto the porn charges.
Yes, she is guilty. But should she be? Should a 15 year old have a legal right to be photographed in the nude? I think yes.
I don’t like age-based laws. In fact I hate them. But if they are going to exist, I tend to believe they should be set to the youngest age at which society can reasonably expect the individual to have a logical intellectual understanding of his or her actions. Should an eight year old be allowed to choose to have sex? No. Why? Because an eight-year does not understand what sex is, what sex can do, or what the consequences of sex are. An eight year old cannot be expected to make those decisions. What about a fourteen year old? Actually, I say yes. I would argue that most fourteen year olds understand sex and can make an intelligent decision about it. Are they emotionally prepared to have sex? Maybe they are, and then again maybe not. But I think that has little to do with age. Frankly, I know people twice that age who I feel aren’t emotionally prepared for sex. Hell, I sometimes wonder about myself. But when I make a decision, be it with my heart or with my head, then it’s my responsibility to deal with the consequences. I think the same thing is true for fourteen year olds. Certainly for fifteen year olds. Similarly, I think that they should also be able to drive, smoke, vote, drink and die in wars. But then, remember, I’m CRAZY!!!
Lots of people read my journal, or at least, I’m lead to believe they do. The youngest two of which I am aware are respectively sixteen and seventeen and therefore you might refer to them as jailbait (technically untrue, age of consent laws being what they are, they are both legal in their home states, but you get my point). And without getting all up in their “bidness” (though either of you are welcome to comment and out yourselves if you want to), I think its safe to say that neither of them are angels. But I’ve also talked to both of them enough to know that they are intelligent and mature people fully capable of making their own decisions. They have real beliefs and opinions and desires. They’re almost… *gasp* real fucking people! Well… almost…
Anyway, I’m sick of ridiculous legislation that has no purpose but to exist for its own benefit. There are too many damn laws in the world. Some laws are good. You know what a good law is. The one that says that you can’t come into my house and take my shit. That’s an excellent law. Another good law is the one that says that you can’t kill my cat or the one that says you can’t rape my girlfriend. That’s some good shit. I even like the laws that say you can’t take naked pictures of anyone (regardless of their age) without their permission. But the laws that say you can’t be naked during the Superbowl. Or that you can’t take naked pictures of yourself if you’re too young. Or you can’t charge for sex. Or you can’t burn your mind away with drugs. Leave those fucking people alone. I suppose the naked during the Superbowl thing had a negligible affect on me, but really, I’m more or less ok. This girl who snapped nudie pics of herself? That’s her fucking problem. Or her parents. Everyone else should just stay out of it for Jay-Z’s sake.
Actually, fuck it… maybe I’m wrong. From now on… minimum age for sex is 23. And you know what else? All sex acts must involve me. Why? Because I’m ruler, and I say so. Also, suicide is now a felony Punishable by death.
Or just kill me…
comments as always are welcome…
Wow. I guess when I sent naked Polaroids to my boyfriend when I was 15 and he was 18… Hmm. Wow, that’s fucked. So to speak.
oh my god! that’s it… arrest this criminal!!!
Yes, yes, cuff me… I mean, um, ahem. Nothin’.
wow… that never occured to me. The obvious “how many cops kept copies of the pictures” question occured to me. But I never wondered “hmmm, was she kinky enough to enjoy it?” I mean, even if she doesn’t enjoy it from a sex/fetish point of view, she’s clearly the kind of girl who craves attention…
True, it’s not exactly rare for teenagers to enjoy any attention, especially negative. I mean, if you’re being arrested, you must be pretty bad ass, ya know?
right… and this isn’t some lame shoplifting case… this is being arrested for sex crimes over the internet. If nothing else, I’m betting she’s getting some phonecalls from the boys.
Oh man, I bet her proverbial dance card is full well past graduation…
yeah…. uh… dancing… that’s what they’re thinking… uh huh… 🙂
Well, if you apply the 80’s song lyric rules, yes.
oh? is there a specific list of rules? If so, I must have it.
Anyway… dancing has been a metaphor for sex since… well, since they invented dancing really…
I’m not sure that they’ve been officially codified… you’d think a quick Google would reveal a plethora of sites devoted to this subject… hmm… damn. But I can’t find one. How… mildly upsetting.
dammit… and I was all set to restructure my life around shiny reptilian skin pants and big hair, too…
Hey, I’m not stoppin’ ya. I personally would like to see that. But I’m pretty sure that puts me in the minority…
yeah, well… I’m much more into bringing back the 70s than the 80s.
Indeed, but a big ol’ fro with lime green snake-printed spandex pants is unmatched in its beauty. But perhaps I’ve said too much.
eh… gren isn’t really my color.
yesterday on the plane i caught a glimpse of a newspaper article regarding making it illegal to show porn movies on DVD players in vehicles. Here’s a similar article.
anyway, it made me think of you.
*sigh*
Have I mentioned lately how much I completely and utterly hate stupid people. The worst part is where the cop says “if you want to do that, get windows that are tinted to where you can’t see in… except, ISN’T THAT FUCKING ILLEGAL TOO!!!
Dammit… when I’m ruler, a lot of things are going to change…
The driver was also driving while watching the porn on his screen which is clearly banned in most states. Most people should be keeping their eyes on the road to begin with. The thing about showing porn in a vehicle is that anyone who is around them can look in on it, and it’s really a public exhibition of such a video. I can understand if parents don’t think that their children are ready for such exposure. Many parents who feel the need to reduce the possibility of such exposures to their kids at an early age don’t allow them to watch TV, but not going out in public isn’t exactly an option.
Yes, but whether he’s watching the road or not is a separate issue. One that is not affected by whether he is watching SpongeBob or Behind the Green Door (fun fact: Behind the Green Door is the porn movie that Jackie Chan’s supercar was equipped with in the first Canonball Run movie. And if its good enough for Jackie Chan to drive to, it should be good enough for us all.)
Actually, I happen to be of the opinion that outlawing devices which might lead to poor driving (cell phones, TV screens) is actually pretty stupid. At one point people used to complain that the radio was too distracting to a driver. What needs to happen is there needs to be stricter penalties for bad driving.
Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is this is a reasonable expectation of privacy and personal choice issue. And its a puritainical one at that. First off, its my car damn it. What happens in it should be my business. Ignore that the film might have been visible to the driver. What if it wasn’t. What if we were on a road trip and you were watching in the back seat? If the law can dictate what can be viewed in the privacy of my car, then its not a big jump to dictate what I can view in my house. Kids are not supposed to be looking in my windows. If they do, that’s really no fault of my own. Am I expected to not watch porn in my living room because kids might come look in my windows? Hell, am I expected to not have sex in my bedroom?
The other thing that bothers me is its another issue of america treating sex as something special. Its not. If I were watching a violent R-rated movie in the back of my car, would there be a case? Maybe for some parents, but what would the law say? What about a PG-13 rated movie? We’d still be talking about something “inappropriate” for the four year old in question to see. What about if I’m just watching TV shows. Completely unrestricted network television. Can I not watch a “parental discretion is advised” episode of ER because some kid might be looking out the side window of his minivan as his parents drive by? Hell, I’ve known parents that wouldn’t allow their children to watch cartoons, or some that would only allow PBS shows, and some that would allow no television at all. Do I have to cater to them as well? That would be ridiculous.
Parents have the right to make decisions about their children’s programming, but they do not have the right to dictate that I try to enforce those decisions for them. Now if I were to take their kid in my car and play porn for them, they have a point, but that’s not what happened here. If they have a problem with incidental viewing, well then dammit, if you must drive your child around in public blindfold him so he can’t see into my car, and leave me the fuck alone.
The problem is, its a slippery slope. Its so easy to say… We’re not really censoring, anything important. Its just sex. But where do we draw the line? Once you start setting precedent its impossible to stop. Hey, maybe I don’t mind my children seeing sex, but I think its wrong for them to watch films where people eat meat.
We have freedom of speech and expression in this country for a reason.
What needs to happen is there needs to be stricter penalties for bad driving.
Any politition that can pass and get enforced such penalties will get my vote. I’m still amazed that such screens actually cause drivers in other cars to be worse because they try to figure out what movies are being played.
We have freedom of speech and expression in this country for a reason.
Even though we have the freedom of speech, we don’t necessarily have the freedom to force others to be exposed to our outlets of such expression. People hate telemarketers because even though they have the freedom to promote their products, people don’t want to be forced to listen to them. Society is ever evolving, and thus the law should be ever evolving about what is considered reasonable material to show in public. People should be allowed(and even encouraged) to experiment with these various outlets on private property, but the state of public property should reflect society’s whims about what is and isn’t acceptable.
If people should be allowed to watch questionable content in their cars on public roads, then do you think that there should also be billboards in plain sight with such content? How about if a large screen TV were mounted on the back of a truck with questionable content driving in front of the school bus every day? Or maybe taking a projector and displaying such things in front of a school every morning. Slippery slope arguments work in both directions unfortunately.
Actually we do have the right to force that speech upon others. Within in reason anyway. You have the right to peacably assemble. You have the right to demonstrate. That’s how protests work, for instance. In theory this means that you can display whatever you want on your property for instance. In practice however, decency laws (which I tend to disagree with) actually tend to get in the way of it. Frequently comic book and porn stores feel the brunt of this. Eides (the record and comic store in downtown Pgh) for instance was damn near put out of business a couple years ago, because people complained about band photos in their windows being over sexualized. They nearly lost their lease, until the ACLU and CBLDF stepped in to fight for them. That’s the entire point. Not wheter its legal, but whether its right. If its ok for you to tell me I can’t watch sex on my property then is it ok to tell me I can’t play violent video games? Can you tell me I can’t worship as I please? It really is dangerous ground to tread.
Your example isn’t a slipperly slope. There is a specific difference between playing a movie inside my car and displaying it on a billboard. If I display it on a billboard, or even on a screen attached to the back of my car, I am trying to push the image to you. If I am watching it in my car then its your fault for invading my privacy. Honestly you aren’t supposed to be looking in my car. You’re invading my privicy. If there’s something you don’t want to see, then tough noogies.
That said, I also think that decency standards are pretty stupid. I think you should be able to put up a billboard with sex on it… I think that free speech is the most fundamental of our rights, and I think it should trump the right to be puritanical. But that’s just me.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the ability to force speech onto others. Protests and demonstrations and other such mass gatherings ideally are a means to show the power of ideas rather than an excuse for mob rule(which many of them devolve into). These sorts of assemblies should show those with power the strength of their ideas not coerce others into agreeing with them.
Watching on screens visible to the outside of your car is a public exhibition. The reason why car windows aren’t allowed to be tinted to be a specific level is because certain parts of the interior of the car are supposed to be viewed by the public. Now if the laws were setup such that the interior of cars weren’t supposedly a publicly visible space, then I’d buy the invasion of privacy argument. Back in the days of huge vans and floor mounted TVs where only the passengers can see it this never was an issue. With laptops, I know there exist a wide array of privacy filters that essientially limit the viewing angle so that not everyone can see what’s going on.
What would you think about someone sitting on one of those sidewalk tables outside a coffee shop watching such materials on their laptop? On one hand they could be doing a public showing, on the other hand, they could be trying to form a bubble of privacy. What if instead of watching a such materials, they were handling private data? I’d argue that the burden of keeping the private things private lies on the exhibitor.
With all of this said, I do believe that decency standards are stupid, and when I raise kids, they will learn how to deal with being exposed. However if society seems to think that certain things aren’t ok in public, then society has every right to enforce those things in public areas.
I think part of the problem is every year or two we elect legislators, and they feel that they must make new laws. Even when we don’t really need them. They just want their name attached to something. Wouldn’t it be nice if we elected people that really didn’t do anything other than balance the budget? Stop trying to muck everything up with unnecessary regulations. Feh.
Also, there’s a law saying I can kill your cat? Cool!
I think you may be onto something there. I wonder if that really is a big motivation of 2 year term legislators. “I must create legislation! I must show that I make results so that I get elected again.” Maybe is right… maybe I should make a legitimate run for office, and try to remove some of this ridiculousness.
Oh, and no you can’t kill my cat. You missed your opportunity. I have fixed the typo (and without affecting the word count no less).
(more words of hostility)
So what about art? I know many underage art students (high school, some middle school) that have sat in on “nude drawing” class – without their parents! Without a permission slip!
I guess that might be different because the subject is not underage. The viewers are though. How is that not corruption of minors/etc?
And can’t we keep a photo journal of ourselves? Are our bodies not our own property?? Can we not have pictures of ourselves at any age for whatever reason we choose!???
Baby pictures, for example, are OK. Why? Because they haven’t developed yet? Where’s the line? Why is a naked 6 month old ok but a naked 6 year old not? And godz forbid that a picture is taken when someone is 17 1/2. Because so much changes in those last 6 months.
Let the girl take her pictures. Let her share them w her bf. How is that different from being naked in front of him? Because he can keep that image of her being naked and 15 available??? Maybe if it’s legally wrong to see her naked in the first place I could understand the pictures being also legally wrong.
Silly people.
wait a minute? are you implying that a 15 year old girl might submit herself to being naked in front of a member of the opposite sex in person? I am shocked! SHOCKED I say! Why next you’re going to be advocating fornication!!
Indeed. Sex is good. Nearly necessary for the continuation of the human race. People are having sex right now, and are enjoying it. Yes, I advocate fornication! Con-sensual sex for everyone! Abstinance is not the way – education is!
ARRGGGHHHH!!! No! You are offending my virgin ears! Where does it end? First unmarried sex, and then the next thing you know, we’ll have buggery, and then gay marriage and before you know it, people are having sex with barnyard animals… oh god, where will it end?!?!?
Wait… did you say people are having sex right now? Like this very minute? And enjoying it? Where? Dammit! What the fuck am I doing at work?
I think they need to round up and arrest everyone who has ever been under 18 for child molestation.
oh don’t be silly…
only the sinners…
*chuckles* I might come join you in that cell for child abuse, I can’t stop molesting myself!
And yeah, I sent pictures to my guy and had pictures taken and what not at 15, 16 and 17, I disagree with age based laws like you do, if someone feels mature enough to do that then let them do it, talk to their parents, or just to them if you’re finding everyone in the town has a bloody album of the girl, but don’t go arresting them under ridiculous laws for it.
Is this icon pr0n?
I’d say it isn’t porn. None of your “naughty bits” are showing. And the underwear are opaque enough that they might just as easily be a bathing suit. But really, I could also see someone seeing it and making a big hub bub about it, which is kind of my point in the 1KWFFH.
Nice rant, and I agree, with almost everything except the sex with you.
Any chance you are at the Phantom of the Attic Wednesday nights? Do you ever go to Lu Lu Noodles in Oakland?
Nice rant, and I agree, with almost everything except the sex with you.
that’s fine… you can just not have sex… under my rule, abstinence is still a completely commendable choice.
Any chance you are at the Phantom of the Attic Wednesday nights? Do you ever go to Lu Lu Noodles in Oakland?
Yes, and yes… I was in fact at both places only yesterday…
Thought that was you
I see you practically every week and we also see you some times going to the Lu.
Next week I will make the effort to actually introduce myself. Perhaps some Wednesday you would like to join us for dinner as well.
free speech
Maybe I’m taking the term too literally, but does free speech really apply to non-“speech” media like pictures and movies??
Re: free speech
yes, it does…. or in as much as the Supreme Court reckons our constitutional rights it does. Obviously, the Constitution (actually, the Bill of Rights) being written when there were no movies to include in the text. But, yeah, the Supreme Court has routinely applied free speech (and free press) to other media. The general consensus being that freedom of speech and press are meant to convey the freedom to dissiminate information. Advances in technology should embrace those freedoms, not strive to quash them. I can look of specific cases for you later, if you care. But just off the top of my head (and a google search) you can read the findings in (00-795) 535 U.S. 234 which shoots down Ashcroft’s interpretation of the CPPA (Child Pornography Prevention Act). It references several specific of photography being constitutionally protected.
As an aside though, my issue with this girl is not really one of free speech. Maybe a little bit. What I more take offense to is kind of a “my body, my choice” issue. I would submit that at 15 years of age a citizen should be able to make choices about the dispostion of their own body. That means, I think she should be able to get an abortion, and she should be able to take naked pictures of herself. The law does not currently agree with me. But that’s how I feel.