Vermont is now officially my favorite state in the union. This week in “Savage Love” I timidly call on a vague “us” to “reconsider” prosecuting teenagers for “sexting.”
A message for concerned parents, outraged school officials, and teen-sex-obsessed prosecutors: We’re gonna have to either make it illegal for teenagers to own camsphonescomputers, or we’re gonna have to give them drugs to delay the onset of puberty until after they’re 18. If we’re unable or unwilling to do those things—technology is hard to contain, and delaying puberty could have unwelcome health consequences (although it would have spared Levi Johnston’s DNA from the ignominy of mixing with the Palins’)—then the intersection of horny teens and newer technologies is going to require us to rethink the simplistic application of laws that criminalize the possession and distribution of sexty (ugh) pictures, particularly in cases where they were created by teenagers, for teenagers.
The Vermont state legislature is way out in front of me. They’re not just rethinking the application of laws that criminalize sexting. They’re talking about legalizing sexting.
Vermont’s Legislature is considering a bill that, if approved, would make the state one of the first in the nation to grant legal protections to teenagers who send sexually explicit photos and videos to one another with their cell phones…. Time has come, advocates said, to align law, technology and teenagers’ use of it as they begin exploring their sexuality.
“They’re doing it,” Chittenden County State’s Attorney T.J. Donovan said. “We don’t want to condone it. We need to educate. But there’s no public interest in labeling them as sex offenders for engaging in a perverted, albeit new, form of courtship.”
Yes, “they’re” doing it—those horny, perverted, tech-savvy teenagers are sexting. But they’re not the only ones doing it. They’re just the only ones getting into trouble for doing it. Adults are indulging in this “perverted, albeit new, form of courtship,” without winding up on sex-offender registries. The law has to be changed not just to protect teenagers from malicious, sexphobic prosecution, but to bring it into line with reality. Right now it’s perfectly legal in Vermont for a 18-year-old to have sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend—oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, ATM, BDSM, CBT, whatever—but they can both go to jail and land on sex-offenders registries for life if his 16-year-old girlfriend sends him a picture of her tits. That’s just nuts.
But Allyn, if our children don’t grow up in fear, how will they know to beat THEIR children?
44 Of course we all need to first explain to them that what they’re doing it’s inappropriate and show better judgement when dealing with a toddler but teens are another matter, sometimes they do get rebellious and well all else fails just showing them the belt makes them rethink what they’re doing.
I’m very blessed in the sense that I have never used it (precisely because I have taught them right from wrong) they have been schooled a lot on Sundays in church to do what’s right. The few times they have gotten out of hand i just showed it to them and believe that’s all it’s taken. I remember slapping the wrist of one once many years ago and they’ve never given me reason to do it again. Of course you feel horrible by just even doing that but the consequences of not teaching them are far greater like this sexting news shows. I just give praise to the almighty and marvel at the smart well educated caring and moral people my teens are growing into. And even my two boys who are way beyond six feet tall (lord knows how much they’ll grow) and have to look down to talk to me know that when I speak they have to listen and when I say no they say yes mam and that’s the end of it.
I think it is silly kids are punished at all for sexting, I mean it is something they can do that won’t get them pregnant or get an STD. Geez, give the kids a break everyone does something they regret later in life but a picture of me in my bra is not nearly as bad as say an unplanned pregnancy or AIDS.
Loveschild, obviously this isn’t the right thread for this topic and how one prefers to raise their children is a personal and subjective topic of discussion… (Teens rebel against authority, btw, and if you’re the domineering person in their life, they will rebel against you. Just a thought.)
Sexting: bad-ish. Prosecuting teens for sexting: stupid and pointless. Child pornography: gonna have to be defined in the context of sexting, won’t it?
If NY goes gay marriage, does that mean we can all wear strappy sandals by Manolo Blanik?
Prosecuting teens for showing explicit images of not only themselves but of other minors is correct and more importantly serves as a deterrent not only for them but for predators who would be even more stimulated in their sickness by the abundance of such behaviors. You’ll see VT crumble soon if they legalize this.
@56. Sure, just after California crumbles into the Pacific for allowing the porn industry to film there and Nevada’s buildings and citizens turn to pillars of salt for all the sin they boast.
@40– Yeah, like I said in the last thread where this came up (and I guess I should have added here), I think that this guy should be in trouble because he sent the photos out without his girlfriend’s permission. But it clearly isn’t child porn and its cases like this that are making the sex offender registry so completely pointless. He should be charged with something like sexual harassment, since as far as I’m concerned distributing naked photos of someone without their permission is harassment that’s sexual in nature. On the other hand, if he had had her permission and they sent them out together, then no one should be charged with anything– the issue here is consent.
So yeah, he shouldn’t be charged with child porn or punished quite this harshly, but he shouldn’t get away with it either. Its not o.k. to betray and humiliate anyone, and its only worse because its his girlfriend and she’s underage.
Now, if there was evidence that she didn’t want to take the pictures in the first place and was coerced into it, then maybe these charges would be more appropriate.
vitaminwater – excelent point. If the prosecuters were truly concerned with the actions of this boy/man, they’d go after him for harassment. You are completely right in that regard (IMHO). But they’re trying to control something truly uncontrollable: human sexuality by a group of people to whom it’s new (and therefore going to explore this new sensation for all it’s worth).
Now you’ll just have to keep repeating yourself until those-who-need-to-hear hear.
A point that might be getting lost: if you make sexters into registered sex offenders, you destroy the meaning of the registry. Now, most people assume the registry only has authentically hard-core bad guys on it. What happens if you register these teens is, your real, honest-to-god, Class A child rapist can tell folks, “oh, yeah, that — gosh, it’s a funny thing, but, you see, I sent a picture of my girlfriend on my cell phone when I was in high school”, and there’s a good chance you’ll say “oh, yeah, I heard about that, crazy, huh?” and there you go, you’re in.
If you believe that the sex-offender registry is a good tool to identify and regulate the activities of REAL BAD GUYS, then you should oppose it being watered down by these relatively trivial offenses.
Here’s an idea: How about we give kids under age 18 cell phones that don’t have camera’s in them? And don’t have texting capabilities? How about that? They’d still be able to call their families, friends, 911 but all that sexy, sexy fun would be no more.
Y.F. @ 61,
That would be a great plan, but I don’t think it would ever happen. Too many children feel that the latest technology is an entitlement, and too many parents agree.
Fnarf @ 60,
You make a great point. I agree with it. The recent tragedy in Vancouver, WA last month illustrates the importance of keeping the sex offenders registry authentic.
Fnarf, all sex that isn’t missionary partaken by adults married by an ordained minister (of God, not of the church of Kim in Portland) for the purpose of procreation is an offense, therefore anyone who has sex under any other circumstance is a sex offender
That means theyre all bad
@60– I’ve heard so many cases of things like 17 year old guys getting put on there for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl, that I already feel like its meaningless. If I met someone who said they were on the registry, I’d have to go look them up to see what it was for before condemning. Are the details of why you’re on the list publically available?
@61– Its not like there aren’t legitimate reasons to have a camera. Besides teens who are actually into photography (will we ban photography class too?), there are things like if your parents don’t believe where you are and want you to send them a photo to prove it, or if you witness a crime or someone being harassed by the police, etc.
Do they even make phones without cameras anymore?
Why don’t we just outlaw adolescence?
@ 55 – We all do, at least in spirit.