March 30th, 2004


Previous Entry Next Entry
02:03 am - 1KWFFH: on the prosecution of victimless sex crimes by underaged self-offenders
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...

Current Mood: [mood icon] cynical

(38 comments | Leave a comment)

 
1KWFFH: on the prosecution of victimless sex crimes by underaged self-offenders - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:05 am (Link)
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.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:17 am (Link)
oh my god! that's it... arrest this criminal!!!
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:22 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:37 am (Link)
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:46 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:54 am (Link)
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:58 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:05 am (Link)
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:25 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:29 am (Link)
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:34 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 08:09 am (Link)
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 08:11 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 08:15 am (Link)
From: rackletang Date: March 30th, 2004 - 08:18 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 11:31 am (Link)
[User Picture]From: anisodragnfly Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:06 am (Link)
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.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:19 am (Link)
*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...
From: bogosort Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:23 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:59 am (Link)
From: bogosort Date: March 30th, 2004 - 01:17 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 08:24 pm (Link)
From: bogosort Date: March 31st, 2004 - 06:58 am (Link)
[User Picture]From: inmostlight Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:13 am (Link)
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!
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:21 am (Link)
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 danitapgh 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).
[User Picture]From: qiika Date: March 30th, 2004 - 06:58 am (Link)
(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.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:07 am (Link)
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!!
From: qiika Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:13 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 08:02 am (Link)
From: monkey587 Date: March 30th, 2004 - 10:03 am (Link)
I think they need to round up and arrest everyone who has ever been under 18 for child molestation.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 10:28 am (Link)
oh don't be silly...

only the sinners...
[User Picture]From: blackfishnets Date: March 30th, 2004 - 12:51 pm (Link)
*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?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 30th, 2004 - 07:22 pm (Link)
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.
[User Picture]From: mamoulian Date: April 1st, 2004 - 10:49 am (Link)
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?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 1st, 2004 - 12:20 pm (Link)
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...
From: mamoulian Date: April 1st, 2004 - 12:26 pm (Link)

Thought that was you

[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: April 1st, 2004 - 11:50 am (Link)

free speech

Maybe I'm taking the term too literally, but does free speech really apply to non-"speech" media like pictures and movies??
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 1st, 2004 - 01:48 pm (Link)

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.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com