Worse Than Killing A Friend
That describes how some teens are punished for having consensual sex with a friend. It's really sick. Look at the photos of the "sex offenders" on Classically Liberal. Branded that for life:
Every so often he will be required to visit the police and report to them. They may show up at his home anytime they want and demand to inspect it. He could be banned from social networking websites, or from the Internet completely.If you child grows up to have a family, a normal relationship will be forbidden. He may well be banned from all activities at his children's school. They may be in a play; he won't be allowed to watch it. If the kids play on a sport's team, their father won't be allowed to attend. Ditto for Little League. Forget having friends over for a birthday party. Dad is a pariah until he dies and his children, and his wife, will be forced to endure the torture with him.
The lucky ones barely manage to hold on. Those who are not so lucky simply end their lives. Others have the option of suicide robbed from them by vigilantes. They quickly learn to give up ambitions and dreams. To excel in life is not possible. To merely survive is hard enough. And some, robbed of all normality, robbed of all hope, mentally and emotionally raped by the state, decide they may as well become the monsters that they are imagined to be.
It takes so little for this happen to a child. A girl in school has oral sex with a boy in school. She becomes a sex offender for the rest of her life. Streaking a school event, as a practical joke, becomes a sex crime in the new America. Two kids "moon" a passerby and are incarcerated in jail as sex offenders, where they may well learn a lesson or two about rape. A teenager, who takes a sexy of photo of him, or herself, is paraded around the community as a "child pornographer" for the rest of his or her life. Two kids in the back seat of a car have fumbling sex. The law says one is an offender because the other is a "victim." One week later, a birthday passes, and it is no longer a crime. One week's difference and a life is ruined. In other cases an act that is legal on Monday is illegal on Tuesday because the older of the two turned one year older. That becomes enough to qualify him, or her, as an offender.
A chart on the site showing who the sex offenders are is just horrifying. According to that chart, 14-year-olds across this country are "apparently the most sexually dangerous group." They're criminals -- for life -- because politicians have defined them that way. I've posted on this numerous times, and share the outrage of Classically Liberal, but this post over there is especially upsetting thanks to all the photos of the kids who now must go through life with the brand of criminal because they got a little horny and got down with some friend or girlfriend.
A comment from Justen on Classically Liberal:
A guy I knew from high school turned 18 and was thrown in jail for 6 months for having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Diminutive, once-glib, and somewhat effeminate, he used to have a loud if sometimes obnoxious personality, was friendly and well liked. When he came back from prison, he could not look people in the eye, did not speak unless he was spoken to, and when he did speak, he stuttered and shook. His confidence was gone, his life completely destroyed not just by sex offense laws but by whatever brutality was committed against him with the complicity of the state while in prison. I don't know what happened to him, he stopped showing up for work one day and I haven't heard a thing about him in years. All I know is a bright, likable kid was destroyed, as you said sacrificed, to political expedience and a braying mob. He wasn't even a personal friend, yet I'll hate every politician who dares open his mouth in support of this monstrosity as long as I live.
Note that the sex offender laws didn't protect Jaycee Dugard from Philip Garrido. They do, however, protect kids who had oral sex when their parents away from ever having normal lives.
via ifeminist
A sex offender should be someone who uses force or has sex with a young person who does not know right from wrong.
These examples mark someone for the rest of there lives because they did something foolish or stupid.
David M. at September 18, 2009 6:01 AM
I refuse to believe that the politicians who imposed this upon us did not intend this very outcome.
Any politician who supported the "sex offender registry" needs to be put on that list themselves.
The entire concept sickens me. If the intent was to alert people to the presence of serial offenders in their community, then perhaps those offenders ought not have been released from prison.
And I'll reiterate - the same state that teaches children to have sex, and hands them condoms as early as thirteen years of age is then prosecuting them for using the knowledge and tools that same state gave them.
Either change the sex ed curriculum to alert children to the very real possibility that sex will completely destroy their lives - and not by making one of them pregnant or infected either - or stop prosecuting children for having sex with each other.
I suspect neither will happen because politicians enjoy hurting people. Sadists, every one of them.
brian at September 18, 2009 6:14 AM
Although the thought has crossed my mind that suicide was the intent.
After all, there was no legal precedent for lifetime imprisonment, and no way to retroactively reimprison past offenders anyhow. So why not create a regime that automatically applies to anyone convicted of a sex-related crime, and make life so difficult for them that the only option left for them is suicide.
I think that might even be more disgusting than my first thoughts.
brian at September 18, 2009 6:16 AM
Legislation often has unintended consequences...it's difficult to analyze up-front what all the effects of a proposed law would be, and the mind of the typical lawyer (which is what most of our legislators are) seems even weaker at this than people in general. But what's really vile is that even when the unintended consequences become obvious, legislators (federal and state levels) are generally very reluctant to go back and address the problem by modifying the law. A horrible example of this can be seen in the case of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a badly-written law that is destroying small businesses, putting homecrafters out of business, and even decimating libraries.
And the higher the degree to which life becomes government-directed, the more people will suffer from such things.
david foster at September 18, 2009 6:32 AM
What are you going to do about it?
You vote for lawyers and you get laws. Do you want these people running healthcare? You will get rules, I'm not so sure about the care.
MarkD at September 18, 2009 6:46 AM
There's nothing you can do about it. The political system is no longer reformable by democratic means. The only solution is violence.
Peter at September 18, 2009 7:06 AM
What the state is condoning is akin to child abuse.
If you murder someone people think you're disturbed. That something bad must have happened to you to make you do something like that. That you're plagued by a mental disorder.
If you're slapped with the sex offender label people say you're a sick fuck.
This is so wrong. If someone is accused and convicted of child rape plaster their face across the country. Fine.
But this? WTF?
Gretchen at September 18, 2009 7:23 AM
Back when the sex offender registries were first proposed, I had reservations because it seemed like a sentence of infinite duration. However, I will admit that I didn't envision the wide range of sex crimes that have been created since then, and that all of them would be classified as being equivalent to forcible rape.
I get an ironic laugh out of leftists who go on and on about how sexually enlightened they are and how repressive the American mainstream is about sex. The current regime that the leftists have created is one of the most puritanical that Western civilization has ever seen. It makes the actual Puritans look like one big orgy.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2009 7:43 AM
Slightly OT, but I thought you'd appreciate it:
http://nonotyou.tumblr.com/post/168208983/sexual-assault-prevention-tips-guaranteed-to-work
Shinobi at September 18, 2009 7:47 AM
These laws are easy to understand once you accept that there is a full-blown war being waged by society against men, with demonization of male sexuality a primary tactic.
That some women are swept up the pogrom as well is accidental -- consider them casualties of "friendly fire."
Why are the nation's mothers, wives, and daughters willing to be complicit in the destruction of their own? The Sisterhood is powerful, indeed!
Jay R at September 18, 2009 7:56 AM
I'm all for completely abolishing the sex offender registry. It is a failure. Not only does it destroy innocent people's lives, but it doesn't do squat to protect myself and my children. In fact, the sex offender registry is greatly responsible for the hysteria that has overcome so many parents who won't let their children out of the house. It makes it look like there are all these thousands of child molesters out there, when there a most likely only a handful.
But seriously, what are the odds that enough sane people will get together to throw out this horrible legislation?
KarenW at September 18, 2009 8:32 AM
Jay R: "That some women are swept up the pogrom as well is accidental -- consider them casualties of "friendly fire."
Jay, I think there might be another explanation, which is actually worse than yours. It's related to the teen-horror-movie syndrome. At the beginning of a teen horror movie, you know how to tell which of the girls is going to be the one who survives? Easy: it's the one who isn't interested in boys. All of the girls who make out with boys (or worse yet, have sex with them) will get slashed shortly after, like clockwork. (It's one of the reasons I think horror movies are about the most boring genre of entertainment ever invented: I can watch the first five minutes of nearly any horror movie, and then predict every single thing that will happen after that, even down to some of the dialogue. Massive yawn.)
If the system sucks up some women for consensual sex acts, all the better to serve as a warning to other women who might be tempted to sympathize with men.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2009 9:09 AM
While it's tempting to attach some great conspiracy to this, the explanation is pretty simple: Politicians need to appear to be doing something to be protecting children. No politician is ever going to be re-elected for relaxing sex-crime legislation. It's political suicide. Especially when they're trolling for the votes of people like a friend of mine, who threatened to break the camera of a dude in the park who might have been taking pictures of his (my friend's) daughter.
Few people will be caught up in the nightmare of law gone wrong (relatively speaking), so they're OK with sacrificing a few to make the many crazy parents happy.
MonicaP at September 18, 2009 9:54 AM
But seriously, what are the odds that enough sane people will get together to throw out this horrible legislation?
As good as the odds that sane people will get together to overturn our drug laws. "Soft on crime", no matter how irrational the legislation or how problematic the consequences = electoral fail.
Whatever at September 18, 2009 10:01 AM
The sex laws have gone bananas.
Of course, bona fide sexual offenders must be dealt with.
Consensual sex between teenagers, or people under 20-something and their teenage lovers is not a sex crime, or any of our business.
The age of consent in 14 in Japan, although there are local variations. Interestingly, it is only under Western influences and pressures that the age of consent has been moving up in Asian nations.
In our own American South, girls used to routinely marry at 15 and 16. An accountant lady I know, now in her 60s, was married in Los Angeles at age 15, with parental consent. Now the Christian right goes bananas when teenagers have sex.
Of course teenagers have sex, and they should. It is normal and healthy.
In years past they were able to marry and have sex. Now, that isnot really an option. We have this silly notion that boys should go years without sexual satisfaction, in the very years when it is the most satisfying and necessary for healthy development.
We are becoming more constipated about sex in America all the time.
You think I am obsessed with sex? How about this: Turn on your TV and watch several hundred people get shot, maimed etc on TV shows and movies. That's in a couple of weeks of watching TV.
One sex scene, even if only showing a man tenderly kissing his wife's breasts? Impossible! The end of the world!
Janet Jackson's boob on TV!!!! Terrible!
I am obsessed with sex? Edwin Meese, the US Attny General under Reagan, had as a major plank a campaign against pornography. He was "tough on pornographers."
I may be obsessed, but I don't hold a candle to the sex-control industry we have in America. Now, that is obsession.
i-holier-than-thou at September 18, 2009 10:49 AM
I think it is a stretch to say tqo 15 year olds having sex is "healthy". The ramifications of the action is completely beyond their means to comprehend. Is it a punishable "crime", no, but it should not be encouraged either. This thing about people "hooking up" with 15 people by the time they are 16 is repulsive to me. It completely demeans the meaning of love and the act of sex. Now if you are a legal adult, by all means, run amok, because you will be responsible for your actions, but last time I checked, a 15 year old cannot have meaningful employment and has not finished high school, so an unwanted pregnancy is the equivalent of a sicial death sentence for both participants. What a stupid statement, "healthy".
ron at September 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/18/worse_than_kill.html#comment-1668364">comment from ronIs it a punishable "crime", no, but it should not be encouraged either.
There are people to do that discouraging and they're called "parents."
Amy Alkon at September 18, 2009 11:53 AM
Ron-
Of course, sex is healthy for teenagers. You are projecting your values onto others.
Mostly though, it is none of our business, whether healthy or not. I do not want a nanny-state deciding how teenagers conduct their love lives.
Lowering the age of consent to 14 makes sense, and eliminates a platform for the state to harass people, even criminalize innocent people.
I can't imagine it is "healthy" to criminalize teenagers for enjoying sex (especially when that is the time of life when it is most enjoyable and natural). Some of my fondest memories are of teen-age trysts. I only wish I had more of them. That stage in life passes quickly.
Ron, if you have sex problems, I am sorry. But don't force your inhibitions on others.
Besides, these boys getting arrested in Idaho--they would be arrested if they only had one "meaningful" love affair, that lasted for years, if they were 17 when "caught" having sex. They are "sex offenders," no matter the duration of their relationship.
Another reason to get the state out of our personal lives.
Consent at 14. Good-bye nanny state.
And when, oh when. will people tire of passing their tiresome mores onto other people?
i-holier-than-thou at September 18, 2009 12:08 PM
The age of consent isn't the problem. If we lower the age, we'll just be arresting 15-year-olds for having sex with their 13-year-old girlfriends. What we need is common sense, and the ability for law enforcement to exercise good judgment. A 40-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old may be actionable, depending on the circumstances. Two teens snogging shouldn't be.
MonicaP at September 18, 2009 12:15 PM
Why do people equate pornography with (healthy) sexual freedom?
Feebie at September 18, 2009 12:30 PM
Meanwhile, we have the Hofstra freshman with the false rape claim against 5 very lucky guys. I say lucky, because one of them filmed the event, thus providing evidence that kept them from prison.
She made the rape claim, because her boyfriend noticed that she had been, shall we say "busy" with the other guys.
MarkD at September 18, 2009 12:49 PM
Feeble; Because your "pornography" is another person's "erotica," is another person's "love story."
Who is to say what is pornographic?
For myself, I find casual murder and mayhem, on copious display in "entertainment" to be pornographic. The glorification of material wealth is offensive too (Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous").
I could waa-waa but I don't.
MonicaP-You make a good point. I was thinking of a way to eliminate a platform for sick busybodies to stick their noses into somebody else's business. We could lower age of consent to 13, and that would probably (on a practical level) eliminate the platform.
Yes, I have reservations about older people having sex with teenagers. On the other hand, given that is consensual, I doubt any harm is done.
Really, I slept with a 25-year-old when I was 17. If I had been 15 I still would have loved it.
i-holier-than-thou at September 18, 2009 1:36 PM
>>There's nothing you can do about it. The political system is no longer reformable by democratic means. The only solution is violence.
Nonsense. Violence; violence; violence.
As a militant MRA/FRA in the 80's, I also studied the possibility of violent protest. After considerable study, I realized violent protesters are simply impatient. If something is really wrong, it will ALWAYS be corrected when enough people decide it is time to fix it. And, one cannot speed up the process, except with a lot of useless pain and suffering.
The Muslim terrorists who attack the US? Morons. All they have to do is wait, and our future demographics will mean we will be dying as a nation, and they will be invited to come in the front door, and they can pass Sharia law through the legislature they will control.
And, there are other options. Is your rear-end nailed to the US? There are plenty of sane places to live, for those few who are not cowards and weaklings who can only think in terms of killing people. The US was formed by immigrants who went charging off to a strange place for a better future. I can't think of any nation which is as bad off as the Midwest was in 1860, yet hundreds of thousands of immigrants lived there and raised families and built prosperous cities. Stop talking violence and start acting like a man.
The only thing I ask is you don't come to my mountain village here in rural Mexico.
By the way, what is the age-ist hang up on older men with younger chicks? My daughter is now out of that age bracket, but if she were 15 again, and sexually active (which she wasn't because we were very close, see Amy's comment about a parent's job) I would much prefer she bang a stable, productive 40 year old man with a job and a house with satin sheets for better banging, so if she got knocked up he could support her, much better than a snot-nosed kid who can't buy bubble gum except as a gift from his parents not to mention pay medical expenses and child care. What is wrong with you people?
If a 15 year old girl chooses willingly to have sex with someone, why does it matter how old he is? Everybody is nuts, not just the nuts who passed these sex registry laws.
Here in Mexico, being an unwed mother is still stigmatized as it should be in the US. So, after age 12, I think it is, but it may be 14 maximum, statutory rape is defined by the girl herself or her parents or guardians. If the parents don't file a complaint the DA can do nothing.
Most parents here would much rather their 15 year old daughter be married, than be an unwed mother. If the male is willing to do the right thing, no DA or Nifong idiot can do a thing about it as long as the parents are happy with the results.
That is,in fact why girls often married young in the US in old times. When she was primed and ready to go, better to get her married, than to have an unwed mother for the parents to support.
One of the imbecile arguments today is that young they are going to get divorced. So, stop no-fault divorce, and start pressuring girls to link marriage to sexual activity and watch teen-age pregnancies plummet! This is what we call no-brainer stuff. At present, in case y'all had not noticed, there is no penalty for the girl with an older boy or man. Pressured marriage is a penalty; it was for hundreds of years, so this is not wild theory.
For those who are so far into the sick US culture, I had better explain, right? If a girl knows she might be married to the guy she is thinking of banging, she may think twice before she gets naked with him. We know because of the history. When she gets off scot-free, of course she is going to run wild.
irlandes at September 18, 2009 1:38 PM
I clicked on the link and found the chart sobering. Reviewing the chart showing the ages being heavily skewed to the 15 year old bracket, I then found myself wondering if they could add a color indicator showing the percentage of female to male in the "offender" section. I suspect it would be nearly all male all the way out.
But from my prior experience as a teenage boy, I know that teenage girls will quite readily pursue sex with teenage boys, including younger ones. I had interactions with girls three years older than me, at a time I was probably "jailbait" for them.
I cannot imagine the local police ever, ever, ever taking the position that a sex crime occured in that instance. I can readily imagine, however, that were the sexes reversed...
Anyway, until you see more 16-18 year old females going to jail and branded as sex offenders, don't expect anyone to care much. Men are fairly disposable creatures in this country, especially the young men, and our culture has little concern about destroying their lives. People with sons need to drum that quite real, quite scary reality into the head of any boy beginning puberty.
Spartee at September 18, 2009 1:41 PM
This is sickening. Didn't we already have laws against rape, assault, kidnapping and any number of other abuses people commit upon one another? Why was it necessary to add yet another level of legislation to regulate who can have sex with whom? Also, how much leeway do judges have in deciding these cases?
Marina at September 18, 2009 1:52 PM
i-hole, I am not projecting my morality on anybody, I am merely pointing out that what you call "healthy" ia anything but for that age range. Teenagers are still children. Obviously you have not raised teenagers. I have three daughters who are now young adults. While I taught them the reasons that sex before they were mature was very risky because of the potential life long impacts, I certainly suspect that they became active at around 18, which was fine with me because legally they were no longer my responsibility. So again, why is sexual activity amongst children "healthy" again? Are you one of those NAMBA morons? There is a big difference between girls marrying at 15 in Georgia up until the mid 20th century and girls 15 "hooking up" these days, but I doubt you can see it through your squinty eyes.
ron at September 18, 2009 1:56 PM
I don't necessarily care for violence either (unless it depicts historical events)or brings some type of needed value to the story (which is RARE).
If you need pornography to get your sexual appetite going, I say you lack imagination and freedom.
Have a nice day.
Feebie at September 18, 2009 1:58 PM
Ron, very few fathers think their 15-16 year old daughter is sexually active, absent some rather undeniable evidence. I suspect many, if not most, of those fathers are wrong.
Teenagers are not children. They are not fully-formed people with all the faculties of a thirty year old, but teenagers are definitely not children. Pretending they are children will only cause us much stress as those teenagers insist upon expressing their individuality and independence.
Spartee at September 18, 2009 2:21 PM
The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" comes rapidly to mind.
muggle at September 18, 2009 3:36 PM
"If you need pornography to get your sexual appetite going, I say you lack imagination and freedom."
Not a regular reader of Amy's I see, no worries, men usually don't have as good an imagination as women do, such the need for visual stimulus yeah? Just because you don't see the need for it, doesn't mean that others don't.
As for this topic, goodness, I feel for anyone who falls victim because of their curiosity, I looked at the pictures of those boys and anyone of them could have been my stepson. They have no clue as to what the future is going to be like, penalized for the natural curiosity most humans are born with.
I simply cannot fathom how the people who came up and then passed these laws have completely forgotten their own adolescence. Really have to wonder what is going to come next.
Amax at September 18, 2009 5:39 PM
>>>While it's tempting to attach some great conspiracy to this, the explanation is pretty simple: Politicians need to appear to be doing something to be protecting children. No politician is ever going to be re-elected for relaxing sex-crime legislation. It's political suicide. Especially when they're trolling for the votes of people like a friend of mine, who threatened to break the camera of a dude in the park who might have been taking pictures of his (my friend's) daughter.
You hit the nail right on the head Monica. These laws will start as well intended. They're originally, and most especially, to get creeps who target children and stop repeat offenders. I have no problem with that. But once the hysteria surrounding it, especially 'protect the children', gets percolating there will be very little voices of reason that say "stop! wait a minute. These laws will sweep up people who are not a threat like an 18 year old with a 16 year old". It's political suicide to even start a conversation like that. They would be labeled soft on crime or the much worse label of "not interested in protecting the children".
I recall a conversation on a talk show where someone (can't remember their name) suggested we are ruining lives and wasting a lot of money on prosecuting and monitoring 18 year olds who had sex with a 16 year old (and the like). A ridiculously over emotional former prosecutor named Wendy Somethingorother verbally lambasted such a suggestion. She went on and on about the threat "adults" like that pose on "children". It typified the lack of thoughtfulness, the reckless over emotion and the absence of fairness at someone even suggesting we shouldn't throw the book at and track every one of these "predators". Her rant pretty much shut down that topic. Of course it is true that law enforcement ends up spending too much money and resources on people who don't need monitoring and never should have been in jail or on "the list". And the inclusion on the list of so many non threats makes it far more likely a real threat will fall through the cracks. It's a damn waste of resources not to mention that little thing of ruining lives.
Finally, this whole story also typifies the flaw in the justice procedure. I think most people believe, or hope, that a prosecutor will be even handed. He or She will take a look at a case and know the difference between a threat and teenagers acting dopey. But prosecutors are in part creatures of politics. The Nifong's exist, I suspect, at bigger numbers than most would believe. To me I just can't fathom how an official charged with making sure JUSTICE is done could sleep at night prosecuting these cases. Pushing for jail time and the lifetime punishment of the sex offender registry for an obvious non threat. Kind of a sad comment on humanity that so many can operate like that..........
TW at September 19, 2009 2:08 AM
TW: prosecutors are after the statistics - how many sex offenders did they put away. Even if some of them are, in fact, even-handed, others will not be.
The real break here should be the jury. Even though judges generally fail to remind the jury of this, the jury's job is to see justice done. Not that the law is obeyed, but that justice is done. If any member of the jury is of the opinion that the law is unjust when applied to a particular case, that person has the right and obligation to refuse to convict.
It's called "jury nullification", and it is an important part of the system. Lawyers (and most judges) dislike it, because it takes power away from the legal system and puts it is supposed to be: in the hands of the people.
bradley13 at September 19, 2009 12:17 PM
I think one good, simple law should be:
If the younger one is under 17 and the older one is four years older or more, it's statutory rape.
Otherwise, if it's consensual, forget it.
(Aside from teachers seducing their students, I mean.)
lenona at September 21, 2009 8:13 AM
In a country the size of the United States, every law of any significance should be implemented in 4 states for 4 years. Only after we are sure of what the unintended consequences are should the law be voted on to extend to the entire country. The lawmakers have a terrible track record at predicting human nature and the future.
tyree at September 26, 2009 3:29 PM
Thanks for the Information, thanks for your useful Article. Also check these nice anal bitches Site. Doppelanal Arschfick
Yaeko Eblen at September 1, 2010 1:07 PM
Leave a comment