Tell us: why did you rape yourself?
December 9, 2006 10:05 AM   Subscribe

Young couple arrested for having sex. In absence of "Romeo and Juliet" laws which protect young people's sexual congress depending on their age difference, children can be both charged as the perpetrator of a sex crime and protected as the victim of one.
posted by tehloki (112 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite


 
They live in Utah. They were both fucked at birth.
posted by Optamystic at 10:12 AM on December 9, 2006 [2 favorites]


Utah in general gets the batshitinsane tag from me. What shocked me the most in this story was the lack of sympathy/consideration by the prosecution. They're pushing through.
posted by tehloki at 10:13 AM on December 9, 2006


Behead them both--Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia
posted by Postroad at 10:20 AM on December 9, 2006


I guess it really weirds me out that kids at this age are even have The Sex.
posted by Milkman Dan at 10:20 AM on December 9, 2006


I love how the main thrust of this argument was that the girl was placed in an odd position. remember dudes are always criminals
posted by Rubbstone at 10:26 AM on December 9, 2006


Except for maybe the kids, everyone involved in this is in need of some sex education.
posted by Chuckly at 10:31 AM on December 9, 2006


Rubbstone, the girl's actions are at issue here because she's the one who is contesting the charge.
posted by jokeefe at 10:36 AM on December 9, 2006


take 20 paces and shoot.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
posted by quonsar at 10:37 AM on December 9, 2006


I guess it really weirds me out that kids at this age are even have The Sex.

Our laws and conventional wisdom on sex were developed in an era where average age at onset of puberty was about 16. It's about 12 now.

I blame TV.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:42 AM on December 9, 2006


"By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable."

"Sex is not okay for this age group." That's the message legislators are supposedly sending with this law. But in the meantime, the entire social framework of society is sending the message: "Sex is okay all the time, it's cool, you should try it!"

In the face of reality television and internet porn, I don't understand how a 12-year-old can be reasonably expected to puzzle it all out and come to the conclusion: "You know, I really think I'm going to try hard to avoid all that sex."

It's a tragedy that this girl is pregnant, but I suspect the solution to the problem is not to be found in paradoxical laws and prosecution.

Minus several million points for good thinking, Utah.
posted by eleyna at 10:47 AM on December 9, 2006


...the girl was placed in an odd position

I'll bet she was!

main thrust

Huh huh huh
posted by jewzilla at 10:47 AM on December 9, 2006


My favorite is where the boy pleads guilty, and the girl sues for equality. 1 year in age difference is not enough to make the girl a perpetrator is her defense.

So, is the boy now a sexual offender and has to register for the rest of his life?
posted by IronWolve at 10:48 AM on December 9, 2006


By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

Well this is certainly a healthy attitude. Because you know, they might be innocent, but their prosecution here would have major symbolic value.
posted by Alex404 at 10:50 AM on December 9, 2006


How exactly does it benefit society to give someone a criminal record for victimless consensual behavior, besides keeping a lot of scumbag prosecutors employed!
posted by clevershark at 10:53 AM on December 9, 2006


When will teenage girls in Utah learn that it's wrong to have sex?

Unless it's with the husband your prophet gave you to, that is.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:56 AM on December 9, 2006


You know how the right is always bitching about "activist judges"? Yeah, these are their activist judges.
posted by tehloki at 10:57 AM on December 9, 2006


Does anyone know whether classifying Z.C. as a sex offender will affect her ability to receive state aid? I can imagine that if she has chosen to carry the pregnancy to term, she might need to apply for W.I.C. or other assistance. As a convicted sex offender (at the ripe old age of 12!), would she still be able to receive that assistance?
posted by brina at 11:02 AM on December 9, 2006


Not only that, Brina, but she probably can't even go to school, since I'm sure Utah bans sex offenders from going near schools. I wonder if they'd even let her parent her child, seeing as she's an established child molester.
posted by footnote at 11:11 AM on December 9, 2006


Wow, everything about this situation is just wrong. I have a fun idea though. How's about we spend some time investigating the parents? Maybe some child neglect charges could be considered. I mean, shouldn't they have to shoulder some blame for the fact that they were unaware that their 12 and 13 year old kids were having sex?
posted by quin at 11:24 AM on December 9, 2006


OMG, Those kids are both pedophiles!
posted by aubilenon at 11:27 AM on December 9, 2006 [2 favorites]


It looks like this means that this is an issue that shouldn't be solved or even touched by the courts.
posted by taursir at 11:29 AM on December 9, 2006


mr_crash_davis

Because Warren Jeffs is the widely acknowledged head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

*Confessor shakes his head wearily*

Vanilla Mormonism is screwy enough absent that sort of misrepresentation.
posted by The Confessor at 12:05 PM on December 9, 2006


Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith — 34 total, from 14 to 58 years old.
Wives of Brigham Young — 27 total, from 16 to 45 years old.
posted by cenoxo at 12:15 PM on December 9, 2006


Looks like she'll have to sign up on the Utah Sex Offender Registry and have her name, address, and physical description (possibly a photograph) preserved online in public records as a sex offender for ten years. Good thing that Utah didn't adopt "Jessica's Law," or this girl would be facing a 25 year mandatory minimum jail sentence.
posted by footnote at 12:26 PM on December 9, 2006


I guess it really weirds me out that kids at this age are even have The Sex.

Why? People have been having sex at that age for millennia. This is just an example of a people suffering because of a poorly worded law.

Our laws and conventional wisdom on sex were developed in an era where average age at onset of puberty was about 16. It's about 12 now.

WTF? The onset of puberty has never been "About 16" unless you're talking about a some kind has severe famine. Puberty is actually triggered by body mass (from what I understand)

Look I know you're trying to argue that some kind of modern blight causes children to hit puberty a lot sooner then they should, but that same 'blight' causes them to grow a lot taller as well. It's not blight as well, but simply access to all the food and nutrition they need. Yes, a lot of kids are fat, I'm not saying they're not, but the health problems caused by over-indulgence affect adults, not children.

Also, in many states, kids can get married at 14. The age of consent in Iowa is 14. Those were not laws written with 15 year old pre-pubescent in mind.
posted by delmoi at 12:33 PM on December 9, 2006


Wow, everything about this situation is just wrong. I have a fun idea though. How's about we spend some time investigating the parents? Maybe some child neglect charges could be considered. I mean, shouldn't they have to shoulder some blame for the fact that they were unaware that their 12 and 13 year old kids were having sex?

That's idiotic. Parents and children are separate people They should not be held responsible for each other's actions

Parental neglect is, like, not giving your kids enough food to eat. It's not monitoring your children for signs of 'deviancy' 24/7.
posted by delmoi at 12:36 PM on December 9, 2006


cenoxo

Oh, I'll grant that Smith and Young may well have been pedophiles themselves, but inferring that Warren Jeffs is regarded with anything other than disgust beyond his own enclave is a bit disingenuous.

The ages of Joseph Smith's wives are actually a bit misleading when considered in a modern context, since female sexual maturity actually comes *far* earlier on average these days than it has historically (12 y.o. vs. 14-16 y.o.)

So in terms of development of secondary sexual characteristics, you could probably consider that fourteen years old roughly equivalent to a modern eleven or possibly even ten.

On the other hand, marriage in the early teens was hardly unheard of back then; some states still have laws on the books validating marriage of people in their early teens.
posted by The Confessor at 12:40 PM on December 9, 2006


clevershark : "How exactly does it benefit society to give someone a criminal record for victimless consensual behavior, besides keeping a lot of scumbag prosecutors employed!"

Not that I think the prosecutors are not beings jerks here, but wouldn't the baby Z.C. had qualify as "victim"? Not stricly, of course, but close enough anyway. But then again the "perpetrators" wouldn't be two clueless kids, but their parents and whoever thought giving them no sex education was a good idea.
posted by nkyad at 12:47 PM on December 9, 2006


I agree with Nykad, there's just as much tragedy that a child was born of this scandal as it is that the children are being prosecuted. What will happen to it? I'm fairly sure they're not going to abort it.
posted by tehloki at 1:12 PM on December 9, 2006


delmoi : Parental neglect is, like, not giving your kids enough food to eat. It's not monitoring your children for signs of 'deviancy' 24/7.

Fair enough. Legal action against the parents probably isn't warranted. But I'm stunned that their responsibility here hasn't been questioned.

In much the same way I decry people who blame videogames for corrupting kids, when it's clearly the parents inattentiveness to what their kids are doing that is the problem, I wonder how two early teens were able to have enough unsupervised time that this could have become an issue. Were there no warning signs that the parents could have picked up on?

I honestly don't know. I don't have kids, so perhaps I'm not realizing how impossible it is to keep an eye on the little ones. But based on how infrequently you hear about this sort of thing, I have to assume that other parents are better at keeping their children from having sex while still in grade school.
posted by quin at 1:19 PM on December 9, 2006


Confessor, quit with the head shaking.

It makes you a dork.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:22 PM on December 9, 2006


quin: unless you are some kind of sexual authoritarian, you should realize that the problem isn't kids having sex in grade school; the problem is kids having sex in grade school and getting pregnant.

They don't need to supervise their children's actions 24/7 to make sure they don't do anything that they don't morally approve of, that's tantamount to abuse. Remember the kid locked in the room with a surveillance camera? Look how he turned out. What the parents need to do is teach kids about the risks involved in sex, and the mechanics of childbirth. By age 7, I fully understood the "penis, vagina, semen, baby" equation, thanks to good parenting. Supervision is not the solution; education is.
posted by tehloki at 1:35 PM on December 9, 2006


If the girl becomes a registered sex offender, it means she cannot be withing fifty feet of herself.
posted by Nyrath at 1:37 PM on December 9, 2006


By age 7, I fully understood the "penis, vagina, semen, baby" equation...

orgasm(penis) = semen
vagina(orgasm(penis)) = baby

You mean that one?
posted by Alex404 at 1:40 PM on December 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


That'd be penis(orgasm)=semen. Hate to be pedantic, but it you pass orgasm a penis I doubt it will return anything ! God forbid you'd be unhappy !
posted by elpapacito at 1:49 PM on December 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


I'm sorry. As you can see I was educated in Utah.
posted by Alex404 at 1:54 PM on December 9, 2006


Isn't this normally the place in a child sex abuse thread where somebody makes a quip about how he hopes the perpetrator gets raped in prison by somebody named "Bubba?"
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:55 PM on December 9, 2006


Baby_Balrog

Apologies, Baby_Balrog; it's a habit I picked up via IRC, where emote commands (/me) are provided and very widely used.
posted by The Confessor at 1:59 PM on December 9, 2006


It seems that these two children:

-were able to become sexually aroused
-decided to have sex together
-were able to work out how to do that successfully

As far as I see it, that's the right age to start having sex.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:00 PM on December 9, 2006


Hey, I have a fucking idea why don't you just leave them alone?
posted by four panels at 2:00 PM on December 9, 2006


delmoi: Parents and children are separate people. I understand where you were going with this, but in actuality the law does hold the parents accountable for the actions of the kids in many instances. Kid breaks a window, you pay.

What is interesting to me is how the law views the responsibility for the actions of kids. For example:

a 14 yo with a 14 yo-- misdemeanor-- they are responsible
a 18 yo with an 14yo --second degree felony, 18 yo responsible.


Clearly, the argument is the 14 yo can consent "a little bit" with another 14yo, but can't at all consent with an 18yo. We rectify this by saying, simply, that society has decided to make 18 the cut off. Ok.

I was also struck by your last comment that parents aren't responsible to monitor for signs of deviancy." You're right-- but weirdly, I am. If a doctor "suspects" a child is having sex with an adult (i.e. 18), he's supposed to report it. That we don't is not the issue-- just that we are supposed to-- but the parent doesn't have such a responsibility. Similarly, if a doc suspects the Dad is abusing the kid, we rightfully must report it; but the mom doesn't have to.

In situations where culpability and responsibility are not easily assigned-- juvenile crimes, sex, abuse, custody, etc-- the default is to medicalize the problem.
posted by TheLastPsychiatrist at 2:01 PM on December 9, 2006


I'm opposed to most laws that ban sex between two consenting partners, but I guess in many walks of like, that would make me a pedo-sympathizer.
posted by tehloki at 2:05 PM on December 9, 2006 [3 favorites]


It would be interesting to see what each is charged with. I'm unfamiliar with Utah law, but if it's anything like UK law then surely the boy could be charged with rape? (which, btw, might explain why the two get different treatment. Over here at least, a female cannot commit rape).

Girl cannot by law consent -> sex takes place (without consent) -> rape.

Interesting point - Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK) leaves this possibility open as well (and was quite criticised at the time if I remember), but the argument was that the prosecution would exercise discretion.

As for age of consent, isn't the general test not whether they can physically do stuff, but when they can appreciate the consequences etc and the morals behind certain things?
posted by djgh at 2:37 PM on December 9, 2006




I'm really not tehloki. I'm just bothered by the fact that the kids here are being forced to take full responsibility for actions that, I'm guessing that they no concept of the consequences of (the pregnancy).

If the answer here is more sexual education at an earlier age, then I'm all for it. If the answer is for parents to be more involved with their kids and be aware of what's going on, that's good too. Basically I'm just trying to come up with something that will prevent 13 year old kids from becoming mothers.

Or criminals for something that they likely didn't understand.

Because that is just fucked up.
posted by quin at 3:05 PM on December 9, 2006


nkyad writes "Not that I think the prosecutors are not beings jerks here, but wouldn't the baby Z.C. had qualify as 'victim'?"

Well, if the kid's mother is unable to get a decent job because she ends up with a criminal record, then the kid will indeed be a victim, but the perpetrator is, again, the prosecutor, who decided to pursue charges.
posted by clevershark at 3:08 PM on December 9, 2006


And how exactly is either a 13 year old girl or a 12 year old boy going to benefit by being labeled sexual predators for the rest of their lives?

How is the voluntary act of intercourse by two people one year of age apart an act of perdition?

I swear I get more and more disgusted with my country with every passing year.

This ranks down there with kicking down the door of a grandmother and shooting her dead because the fuckhead DEA thought she was selling weed.
posted by rougy at 3:12 PM on December 9, 2006


I'm guessing that they no concept of the consequences of (the pregnancy).

Do you really believe that kids that age don't know where babies come from?
posted by Hildegarde at 3:12 PM on December 9, 2006


Adults are stoopid.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:18 PM on December 9, 2006


"Because Warren Jeffs is the widely acknowledged head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?"

Who said he was? I linked to an article about a self-proclaimed prophet from Utah forcing teenage girls into polygamist marriages. Nowhere did I make any reference to the Mormons. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:24 PM on December 9, 2006


Given the ubiquity of Mormonism in Utah and the position of the Prophet (Joseph Smith and his successors through Brigham Young) as the head of the Church, I felt your identification of Jeffs as a 'prophet' warranted clarification, especially because he likely considers himself heir to Smith.
posted by The Confessor at 3:38 PM on December 9, 2006


Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

The way two very different problems - pedophilia and underage sex - have been conflated in this sentence just absolutely staggers me.
posted by Chanther at 3:46 PM on December 9, 2006


unless you are some kind of sexual authoritarian, you should realize that the problem isn't kids having sex in grade school. the problem is kids having sex in grade school and getting pregnant.

Whoa. I can agree that vigorously prosecuting 12 year olds as both felony perps and victims for fooling around obviously isn't a good solution, and it's clear that the Utah Supreme Court at least sees the problem inherent in the situation.

But it sounds like you've just said that (a) the only potential negative consequence of sexual involvement is unintended reproduction (b) anyone who thinks that kids shouldn't be getting it on during recess is a sex-hating control freak.

Both are pretty tenuous statements. Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.
posted by weston at 3:47 PM on December 9, 2006


On postview:

The way two very different problems - pedophilia and underage sex - have been conflated in this sentence just absolutely staggers me.

Excellent summary. That appears to be the crux of the problem here. The weird dual legal status of perp and vicitm is interesting, but it's probably secondary to the fact that whatever your particular views on healthy sexuality for grade-school to barely pubescent kids are, it's pedophilia and underage sex are very different situations and if your law doesn't distinguish between them you're going to find it disconnects with reasonable responses to the situation, just like it does here.
posted by weston at 3:52 PM on December 9, 2006


But how would you state the law that it didn't prosecute for underage sex, but did for paedophilia?

Saying "if they are both under 14, it's fine" leaves us open to one 13 y/o raping another. So you say "if they are both under 14, and both consent, it's fine", which leaves it open to the view that children that young don't have the capacity to consent, because they may agree to the act without fully knowing what it will entail.
posted by djgh at 4:21 PM on December 9, 2006


I'm guessing that they no concept of the consequences of (the pregnancy).

Do you really believe that kids that age don't know where babies come from?


2 different issues. You may know where babies come from, but it is possible at the same time to not understand the consequences of having a baby on your life.
posted by papakwanz at 4:31 PM on December 9, 2006


...children that young don't have the capacity to consent, because they may agree to the act without fully knowing what it will entail..

And there are adults who don't know (or don't want to think about) the fact that intercourse can lead to conception. Ignorance of reproduction would not be an excuse in any civilized society that gave a damn about the education and well-being of its children - and the possibility that that ignorance exists is society's fault, not the woman's. And in this case, I think you are making a very broad and inaccurate assumption.

As for the law, it needs to be changed. Menstruation is the biological indicator that a woman is, from a biological perspective, ready to have sex. (I would emphasise that this does not mean that she should have sex, or that she is emotionally ready for it). If she menstruates and consents, it should be legal. (Trying to define "informed" consent opens the possibility of endless semantic hair-splitting).
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 4:35 PM on December 9, 2006


... children that young don't have the capacity to consent, because they may agree to the act without fully knowing what it will entail.

Again, not a handicap that is limited to children.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 4:37 PM on December 9, 2006


children that young don't have the capacity to consent, because they may agree to the act without fully knowing what it will entail.

I don't think it's true that children don't have the capacity to consent. I think they don't have the capacity to give informed consent to sex with an adult, because child in a relationship with any adult is unlikely to understand the level to which an adult holds authority and power over him/her. We train children to do as their told, even though they don't understand why; adults having sex with children take advantage of this fact. It seems to me that two children having sex with each other violates nothing other than the naiveté of adults who imagine that two kids who are capable of having sex won't.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:09 PM on December 9, 2006 [2 favorites]


"Given the ubiquity of Mormonism in Utah and the position of the Prophet (Joseph Smith and his successors through Brigham Young) as the head of the Church, I felt your identification of Jeffs as a 'prophet' warranted clarification, especially because he likely considers himself heir to Smith."

Huh. From the "weary head-shake" and accusation of misrepresentaion, it looked like you were being a condescending prick, not asking for clarification. But maybe that's just me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:47 PM on December 9, 2006


I wasn't trying to suggest that only children are unable to consent - I'm well aware of the issue of those considered to be mentally handicapped etc. among others. My full sentence was:

which leaves it open to the view that children that young don't have the capacity to consent

This was to give some issues regarding and reform of the law so as to ensure that this type of needless prosecution does not take place.

But in reply to some points:
Bora: I was not merely talking about reproduction. There was a girl who consented to giving oral sex, as she was under the mistaken belief that doing so would help her singing voice. She consented to taking a penis in her mouth. Knowledge as to the physical details of the act itself does not necessarily mean that anyone is in a position to give consent.

As to your view that when a girl menstruates and consents, it should be legal, I don't think this would work practically. Girls can menstruate from 8, and generally around 12. So having sex with 8 year olds is ok? Secondly, the key issue is consent. How can a child that young have properly informed consent? Obviously, you can say that if it's two 12 year olds, it's fine, but you don't put a limit on who can have sex with them. So if a 12 year old menstruates and consents, a 32 year old can have sex with them? Surely I'm not the only one to find that wrong.

I'm not saying two 12 year olds can't have sex together, I'm just trying to raise the issues surrounding the drafting of any laws trying to stop paedophilia whilst maintaining the autonomy of minors.

Hildegarde: The distinction between consenting with a similar aged person and an adult brings us back around to why I made the original point.
posted by djgh at 5:53 PM on December 9, 2006


This problem is textbook! The following is from materials law students use to study for the bar:

"If the statute is intended to protect members of a limited class from exploitation or overbearing, members of that class are presumed to be immune from liability, even if they participate in the crime in a manner that would otherwise make them liable."
posted by banished at 6:10 PM on December 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


djgh, people aren't suggesting that it should be impossible to say one 13 year old raped another - just that it should be possible for them to have sex without necessarily being defined as raping each other. Given that the law in question already says 'if they are both 14/15, it's fine' then I'm sure the finer legal points have already been worked out.
posted by jacalata at 6:10 PM on December 9, 2006


mr_crash_davis

No, I admit my response was condescending and kind of 'prickly', but I was correcting what I perceived to be an undeserved slur on Mormonism. Since I appear to have misconstrued your original comment, I'll apologize for the tone of my response.

Is that sufficient?
posted by The Confessor at 6:11 PM on December 9, 2006


banished, maybe 'limited class' is a legal term, but that seems very broad. Would it cover, say, a black guy discriminating against another black guy?
posted by jacalata at 6:13 PM on December 9, 2006


I had a number of friends - not myself, as I regretted at the time and don't really regret now - who were having sex at 11, 12, and 13, and all with kids the same age. The amazing common thread through my admittedly anecdotal experience was that none of them were traumatized then, nor do they think back on it badly now. Also, there were no courts involved, and in the case where a friend of mine got caught (at school, no less) she was grounded for a month. No more sex tales from her for a while.

Kids are different, and age very differently. Some may be terrified at the idea of sex at 16, while others need to get it out of the way at 12 just to know what all the fuss is about. That in itself is natural, and value-neutral, I'd say, but if kids don't know the facts about sex when they're ready to go off having it themselves, then that's society's fault, and that is wrong, and that is dangerous.

Age-based consent laws are that legal quandary where any law you draft is bound to be somewhat arbitrary, but any law is better than none. Still, I'd hope that it could follow the ethos that underage sex is experimentation, while an adult having sex with a child is predatory. I don't like the precedent of leaving those sort of decisions to the whim of a judge, but context matters a lot here, and more than the law can adequately predict or prepare for.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:21 PM on December 9, 2006


jacalata: My points were directed more at the underlying issue of consent and capacity of children, rather than the specifics involved. The law explicitly deals with 14/15 year olds in this case, but not with exemptions for 12/13 year olds, so I thought the issue of consent and capacity to do so was relevant.

Not trying to be combative or anything.
posted by djgh at 6:38 PM on December 9, 2006


As to your view that when a girl menstruates and consents, it should be legal, I don't think this would work practically. Girls can menstruate from 8, and generally around 12. So having sex with 8 year olds is ok?

Of course not, not any more than saying that a woman who never menstruates could legally never have sex. Exceptions will always exist. But we've agreed, I think, that the average age of menstruation and legality for intercourse should coincide.

Secondly, the key issue is consent. How can a child that young have properly informed consent? Obviously, you can say that if it's two 12 year olds, it's fine, but you don't put a limit on who can have sex with them. So if a 12 year old menstruates and consents, a 32 year old can have sex with them? Surely I'm not the only one to find that wrong.

In answer, I'd reference Hildegarde's comment, who addressed this point far more elegantly than I could aspire to.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 6:39 PM on December 9, 2006


So you'd argue that consent to have sex with other children is valid, whereas consent to sex with adults (by such a child) isn't?

Surely consent either exists or it doesn't, regardless of the inherent power of adults of children. This therefore must be why children under a certain age are not legally seen as being able to consent - to stop them genuinely consenting but for the "wrong" reasons.

In any case, this whole discussion would not have taken place had the prosecution exercised some discretion.

(As regards your first point, I think we must distinguish between a 12 y/o having sex with another of similar age (+/- 1 perhaps?), and with adults. The first I'm in agreement with you, the second, no.)
posted by djgh at 6:56 PM on December 9, 2006


Hey jacalata,

Here is the example they use to support the proposition, (I think it is analogous to the current situation, but you can draw your own conclusions):

Example: A is charged with transporting B, a woman, in interstate commerce for immoral purposes; B is charged as an accomplice, on the ground that she encouraged and assisted A. Is B guilty? Held: No. The statute was intended to protect women, and thus the woman transported cannot be convicted.
posted by banished at 7:06 PM on December 9, 2006


Under age sex? Utah? Oh the humanity!
Somewhere the prophet Mohammed Warren Jeffs is smiling.
posted by Master Baiter at 7:10 PM on December 9, 2006


Our laws and conventional wisdom on sex were developed in an era where average age at onset of puberty was about 16. It's about 12 now.

Puberty? Meh. How about RESPONSIBILTY? She is in no position to take responsible care of her kid; she can't even drive it to the doctor. I really don't see where the age of puberty comes into it. She may be sexually mature enough to bear a child, but not mentally or emotionally mature to be responsible for its care.

In the face of reality television and internet porn, I don't understand how a 12-year-old can be reasonably expected to puzzle it all out and come to the conclusion: "You know, I really think I'm going to try hard to avoid all that sex."

What, there are no parents involved here? I have two teenagers, 16 and 19, who have managed to avoid this sort of thing. We don't watch much, if any, reality TV; we keep an eye on their internet usage. In spite of society, the parents should have prevented this.

It's a tragedy that this girl is pregnant, but I suspect the solution to the problem is not to be found in paradoxical laws and prosecution.

Minus several million points for good thinking, Utah.


What part of "kids having sex is bad" do you disagree with? If kids have sex, there should be serious repurcussions for the people that have sex wtih them, EVEN IF THEY ARE OTHER KIDS.

This is, at the very least, delinquent behavior.
posted by Doohickie at 7:14 PM on December 9, 2006


I'm not saying two 12 year olds can't have sex together,

WHY NOT???!!! They shouldn't. Period.

Sheesh.
posted by Doohickie at 7:16 PM on December 9, 2006


thanks, banished - the example seems analogous to me too :)

djgh: I think you confused your point by adding your first sentence, where you ask how you can control pedophaelia if you legalise underage sex, which is dealt with by giving an 'appropriate age range' (ie, two 13 year olds is not pedophaelia).
For the rest of it, I'm afraid I'm no longer clear on what you're arguing, so I'll leave it :)
posted by jacalata at 7:21 PM on December 9, 2006


Doohickie, your childhood must have been sterile and repressed. What issue do you have with sexuality outside the arbitrary societal "maturity ages?"
posted by tehloki at 7:35 PM on December 9, 2006


Case in point: Tribal societies, where women become sexually active soon after their first menstruation. They aren't damaged by it, although your fragile preconceptions of when sex is "right" might be.
posted by tehloki at 7:36 PM on December 9, 2006


jalacata: Even I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that, looking back. Nap time, methinks.
posted by djgh at 7:37 PM on December 9, 2006


this could have been avoided if the prosecutor had used a little common sense initially. but in a state based on the foundation of a church that soon gets lost.
posted by altman at 7:40 PM on December 9, 2006


"Is that sufficient?"

Suits me, although I was kind of hoping for a duel at dawn.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:00 PM on December 9, 2006


My grandparents married when he was 14 and she was 13. He just lived to see his 75th wedding anniversary. (She is still going at 92.)
posted by king walnut at 10:35 PM on December 9, 2006


"My grandparents married when he was 14 and she was 13."

Clearly, they were nuts.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:58 PM on December 9, 2006


Maybe they were just Soaking. That's legal right?
posted by MapGuy at 6:31 AM on December 10, 2006


Doohickie writes "What part of 'kids having sex is bad' do you disagree with? If kids have sex, there should be serious repurcussions for the people that have sex wtih them, EVEN IF THEY ARE OTHER KIDS."

Doohickie writes "I'm not saying two 12 year olds can't have sex together,

"WHY NOT???!!! They shouldn't. Period."


Uh, Doohickie? Hate to break it to you, but there's a whole lot of 12/13 year old kids out there having sexual contact with each other every day. What, precisely, is wrong with this? I would absolutely say there's an issue when one of the children is being exploited, or if they have no idea about contraception (if the gender pairing involved would require such) or STD protection. But if it's two happy, healthy kids doing their thing, what is the problem?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:59 AM on December 10, 2006


"But if it's two happy, healthy kids doing their thing, what is the problem?" - posted by dirtynumbangelboy

Typically the mindset is such that they don't think about contraception or disease protection. That and in many parts of the world where kids that young are having sex, sex is intertwined with social values and in some ways property. Typically the term "marriage" is involved. And in those cultures kids work at much younger ages. And indeed some rural areas in the U.S. (hence the younger marriage ages).

But I think that's all predicated on trying to control sex, etc. Dangerous thing to do that, but it's also dangerous to let it go. I mean hell, if you know any young teens you know how nasty they can be to each other (I'm thinking the middle school age behavior - monkeylink). And guys will - and have - fought to the death over this stuff (indeed, some of the things that go on in Romeo and Juliet).

The main argument is that kids that young aren't psychically ready for that heavy a trip (to get techinical). Not cause of the sex exactly, but the integration with the society the kids themselves form. (Can't all be in the "Blue Lagoon")

I don't have a moral issue with it, but ethically it's tough to just leave them to their own devices on this. By the same token, it's tough to get involved in it. Seems like the oft-used answer is to just tell them "no" and keep treating them like kids.

I don't know if, and I doubt that, that is the answer though. So not really a counterpoint to your point, just a riff on that niche in the not up to speed on the dangers vs. happy and healthy in your frame.

Beats putting them back to work in the mines I s'pose.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:52 AM on December 10, 2006


Soaking, soaking, I say they were just soaking!!!!
posted by MapGuy at 8:52 AM on December 10, 2006


What surprises me most about this is that nobody on Metafilter has made a Borat joke out of this yet.
posted by muppetboy at 11:17 AM on December 10, 2006


Great success! ahighfive!
posted by tehloki at 12:56 PM on December 10, 2006


The age of consent (for marriage) in the medieval Church was 12.

Not that everyone got married at 12 - it seems like most people got married in their late teens and twenties (especially poorer people who had to get money to set up families). But the Church decided that no one before 12 should get married, but they were okay with 12 year olds getting married.
posted by jb at 4:00 PM on December 10, 2006


^^ Kind of draws attention to the hypocrisy of "Like sex with people under age x? You're a criminal!" and other such sentiments. The crime being committed is deviancy; it's going against the current "maturity" paradigm.
posted by tehloki at 5:07 PM on December 10, 2006


What, there are no parents involved here? I have two teenagers, 16 and 19, who have managed to avoid this sort of thing. We don't watch much, if any, reality TV; we keep an eye on their internet usage. In spite of society, the parents should have prevented this.

The argument that parents have absolute authority over their kids at all times and should be able to absolutely prevent them from doing any particular "unacceptable thing" is, well, bogus. Presumably you're aware, (having a 16 and 19-year-old), that your kids don't always make good choices. In fact, I think one of the defining characteristics of children is their lack of understanding of long-term consequences. Sometimes they make... mistakes. As soon as you make the "parents should have prevented this" argument, it opens up the door to: "You know, it's really the parents' fault the kids had sex! Let's prosecute them instead!"

And I've always been a little cautious about that concept - since regardless of what the law says, children are living, breathing, thinking humans who make choices.

Condemning a parent for something they have actually done wrong (for example: if the parent is actually sexually abusing the kids or something) is one thing. Condemning a parent based on the actions of their kids is something quite different, and in my view, simplistic.


What part of "kids having sex is bad" do you disagree with? If kids have sex, there should be serious repurcussions for the people that have sex wtih them, EVEN IF THEY ARE OTHER KIDS.

I'm going to cite the argument above (which I think is a good one) that underage sex and pedophilia are completely different problems. Acting like they are the same problem is stupid. Every age group 14-18 has some kind of distinction in the eyes of the law between adults having sex with children, and children having sex with each other. In my opinion, there's no reason the 12-13 age group shouldn't carry the same distinction.
posted by eleyna at 5:56 PM on December 10, 2006


Geez. Some of you people have so much faith in 11/12/13-year-olds, I wonder when's the last time you spent time with any. These kids are still learning not to forget their lunches or library books. You're going to trust them to pack a condom?

Dirtynumbangelboy, what if you're the caretaker for a 12-year-old girl who gets pregnant. She was one of the super-responsible and oh-so-ready-for-sex types, but-- oops! I doubt you think she's ready for motherhood. Are you going to take her for an abortion? Do you think she's ready for THAT? How can you be sure you'll even hear about the pregnancy before she's 4-5 months along?

And what about the boy who knocked her up? You're going to tell him his friend had an abortion (or is having a child), but not to worry, that's sometimes what girls have to do as the price of their innocent fun? Sorry, that's no lesson for a 12-year-old.

tehloki, no amount of education can guarantee that kids won't get pregnant or STDs from sex. They're not ready for the potential consequences; therefore they're not ready to take the risk.

Also, "societal 'maturity ages'" are not all "arbitrary." Tribal societies have no place in this conversation, since they have their own methods (a husband or an extended local clan) to help with the possible results of early sex. And the 12-year-old sex partner is not going to be dealing with stigma attached to those results, for years to come.

I'm not saying the kids in this story should be prosecuted, nor do I think that the situation is necessarily the parents' fault. But there's a huge area between "you fool around, you talk to the judge" and "you got your period? Go have fun you happy, healthy kids, and don't forget the condom!"
posted by torticat at 9:08 PM on December 10, 2006


Your arguments just make you seem like you idealize youth and innocence, at the expense of sexual freedom. If I'm misreading you, please let me know.
posted by tehloki at 9:11 PM on December 10, 2006


Uh, yeah. I have an 8-yr-old daughter and an 11-year-old son. I do value their youth and innocence. They know where babies come from (we've reviewed it more than once, in explicit terms, over recent years). We have not, however, gone over the symptoms of STDs with them. Quite yet. Am I naive?

Who's idealistic here? I say sex can have unintended consequences even if a kid is responsible enough (a big if) to use contraception. And those consequences aren't good, for a 12-year-old, in 21st-century America.

You say, sexual freedom--it's all good.

So what do you do with that kid who gets messed up when contraception doesn't work?
posted by torticat at 10:18 PM on December 10, 2006


This is a complicated issue with no real clear-cut solution. I guess part of my main concern, personally, is the idea of government supplanting parental responsibility. That is, where do we draw the line with regard to the boundaries the government can place on how we raise our children?

If I'm a parent of a twelve-year-old and I want to let him have a beer or two on occasion because I feel he's responsible enough, I should be able to do that without fear of government intervention and being charged with negligence or contributing to the delinquency of a minor or having the court take my child away.

Sure, there are parents who would abuse this or be completely irresponsible, but let's deal with those cases individually as they arise. That is, after all, what courts are for. Chances are there are other instances of negligence and atrocious parenting going on in these situations that ought to be remedied as well.

Plus, if the government is going to be doing all the parenting, then there's not much of an incentive for anyone to raise a mature, responsible child, because they'll be legally restricted in the same ways as everyone else. What's the point? Settle for mediocrity because it's so much easier.

Similarly, if I feel I've raised a teenager who's in my opinion responsible enough to have sex at fourteen or fifteen, who's to say that's wrong? The masses? Give me a break. There is nothing that makes a majority intrinsically "correct", and the idea of creating and reinforcing arbitrary ideas based on collective superego is insane.

"Societal acceptability" is an illusion, and is merely superego that we project onto other people and see reflected back at us. We assume that we should behave, think, act, react in certain ways in order to be considered "acceptable" to others, when in actuality, they're all making the exact same assumptions about us and behaving the same way. And if we fall out of line with the assumption of what people feel they're expected to feel, then they'll reject us because they think that's what's expected of them. But I digress.

The whole thing smacks of cultural egotism as well. Even from one state to the next, age of consent laws vary by on average about 1.5 years. Between the U.S. and other countries, the difference is even greater. And it's hard to say who's "right" and "wrong", because there is no intrinsic "right" or "wrong" about any of this, yet we seem to assume there is, because AMERICA, FUCK YEAH.

Mostly, I'm not really sure if a police state is necessarily preferable to an anarchist one, if the decision is limited to one of those two choices. But I guess that's a much broader issue and a far more general discussion.

I'm a little terrified of the idea that children in this country are brought up with the mentality that they must constantly defer to the government as a babysitter, the arbiter of all their actions. It makes people extremely easily led. And when "the law" begins to supplant genuine conscience... bleh. Scary.

I've ranted enough.
posted by EtJabberwock at 12:10 AM on December 11, 2006


torticat: Well, the converse is "what do you do with the kid who got arrested and labelled as a sex offender for having consensual sex with her own boyfriend?"

I'd prefer to err on the side of personal freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that junk), when it comes to legislation for this sort of thing. Of course, I don't have any children of my own, so your opinion may differ greatly.

on preview: ErJabberwork, your rant makes my libertarian streak emit a nice, warm, fuzzy glow. I'm especially disturbed by this: "On one side of this internal imaginary line in the dirt, your consensual sex is a federal crime. On the other side, it's a misdemeanor. Across that line over there, it's completely legal. On the other side of the world, it's punishable by death!" and so on.
posted by tehloki at 12:52 AM on December 11, 2006


Oh, I kind of dodged your final question there, torticat. My official answer is: provide her easy access to an abortion, or alternately to state funds to help her raise the child (because a 13 year old is a dependent herself and cannot support a sub-dependant).
posted by tehloki at 12:53 AM on December 11, 2006


and counselling. Lots of counselling. Losing OR raising a child at that age is damaging, to say the least; on that point I do agree. However, I believe it's up to the child (and tacitly her educators) to best avoid the situation herself.
posted by tehloki at 12:55 AM on December 11, 2006


"Doohickie, your childhood must have been sterile and repressed. What issue do you have with sexuality outside the arbitrary societal "maturity ages?""

Your NAMBLA card's in the mail.
posted by klangklangston at 1:53 AM on December 11, 2006


Nowhere have I advocated sex between people of vastly different ages/levels of maturity. You're painting me with the wrong brush; I just don't want teenagers to become fearful of expressing their sexuality towards each other. Pedophilia is still a serious issue; sexually frustrated middle-aged men with the hots for pre-sexual kids do not concern me. It's the existence of these kids who are in love and being prosecuted for consensual sex that grinds my gears.
posted by tehloki at 2:00 AM on December 11, 2006


Heh, don't get me wrong, of course--I do think the government should have at least some level of authority, especially when it comes to ensuring the responsibility of entities whose personal best interests involve their being irresponsible. (e.g. "It's cheaper to just dump this here, and we've got stock-holders to worry about!") And we definitely need safeguards against irresponsible and negligent parents, and various other harmful situations as well, and we need an entire system through which people can seek to remedy grievances with others, and etc. etc. etc. It's complicated, and I don't agree with either the "ABOLISH ALL GOVERNMENT" camps or the "WE NEED MORE LAW AND ORDER" camps. I find it ridiculous to fully adopt either "side", really.

I just think that the current implementation oversteps its bounds by a disturbingly large amount, particularly on the level dealing with individual people, and that there's really no demonstrable "improvement" in anyone's lives because of it. Not only that, but much of it seems arbitrary, or really lacks any rational basis. When we're basing laws on "well, that's what the overall group of people generally THINK people in general should be able to do" instead of actually assessing risk of damage and benefit and basing general regulations on the observable world around us, we're doing nothing but being incredibly fascist and oppressive and self-centered and slinging our priapismic superego all over the damn place. (BE EXACTLY LIKE ME AND NOBODY GETS HURT. WE HAVE POLICE, WITH GUNS, AND YOU WILL BE SHOT.)

Though, really, it doesn't even matter what the danger or benefit is for a lot of things. Let people do whatever they want to do, as long as they're not oppressing or harming others, and what difference will it ultimately make? (Of course, this attitude possesses an intrinsic hypocrisy in that it takes oppression to end oppression. But at that point, it's at kind of a "meta" level in that those doing the original oppression are doing it arbitrarily and those oppressing on the higher level are oppressing to end oppression.)

Specifically with regard to this situation: No laws are going to keep people from fucking. It's an extremely powerful biological drive, and the bulk of our behavior and daily activity is at least indirectly caused by it, starting at a fairly early age. Punishing teenagers for having sex with each other accomplishes nothing, and punishes the family much, much, much more than just dealing with the consequences of sex. (What's worse, pregnancy or pregnancy plus court costs plus juvenile hall plus registering as a sex offender plus etc? Isn't pregnancy enough?) And there's no reason for it. It just exists, as a law, and is enforced. How does it make anyone's lives easier or better? I can understand not wanting teens to be taken advantage of by people twice their age, and I understand the need for limitations in that respect, but this is different.

Nearly all sex is recreational. While engaging in it does risk pregnancy, it's not a guarantee and is in fact quite unlikely if done responsibly. You might choke to death while eating a salad, too, but those are still legal. I reject this teleology. Sex is just sex, and the "purpose" can be controlled. If there was no control, no ability to defer or even entirely avoid consequences, I could understand wanting to keep people too young to deal with those consequences from experiencing them. But this is different. One can be mature enough for sex but not for pregnancy. That doesn't mean they can't have one because of risk of the other.

And that decision should be up to the parent, not the government, and the idea that there is a definite age that applies to each and every individual accurately is unrealistic and ridiculous.
posted by EtJabberwock at 2:30 AM on December 11, 2006


As bad as Joseph Smith was, he was only bangng 14 year olds. Mohammed was banging 9 year olds.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:35 AM on December 11, 2006


"There is one god Allah and Mohammed is his paedo?"
posted by tehloki at 7:43 AM on December 11, 2006


wow, jeffburdges - flagged as an offensive noisy derail that broke the guidelines.
posted by jacalata at 12:31 PM on December 11, 2006


Uh, one question among many that can be brought up with your misguided outburst, jeffburdges: What was the life expectancy in Mohammed's culture/time compared to that in Joseph Smith's?
posted by EtJabberwock at 2:13 PM on December 11, 2006


tehloki, "what do you do with the kid who got arrested and labelled as a sex offender for having consensual sex with her own boyfriend?" is not the converse to anything I said. I don't think those kids should have been prosecuted.

I do understand the impulse to regulate sex among kids in the United States of America because we don't have systems in place for dealing with the babies of 12-year-olds. And I don't think that kids that age should have to deal with all the issues surrounding abortion.

However, I don't see any way realistically for the state to punish/disincentivize sex among kids, and I certainly agree that these kids shouldn't be labeled as sex offenders.

So the primary responsibility for prevention does lie with the parents. And my only point was, I think any parents in this culture who would encourage an 11 to 14-year-old to go ahead with sex are not acting in the best interests of their children. (Actually I tried to avoid using the word "children" so as not to make an emotional argument, but in our culture, at least, these kids are children. They have a good four to six years ahead of them before they will really be expected, legally, financially, whatever--to take responsibility for anything of substance.)
posted by torticat at 8:13 PM on December 11, 2006


I say we ban salads, because someone might choke on a crouton.

Sex is not a guarantee of procreation. One can be responsible enough for sex, but not for babies. If they're responsible enough for sex and know how to do it safely, if they do it correctly it does actually reduce the risk significantly. That's not to say it won't happen, but I don't think we should be banning salads because one in five hundred responsible eaters will choke and may die (or whatever the actual statistic is).

There will be cases of extreme negligence (e.g. letting your nine-year-old sleep around, for instance) that are obviously irrational in a logical way (and not a collective superego way) and should be prevented against. That doesn't mean we need to set explicit boundaries on how a parent can raise their children. Especially because maturity happens on an individual basis, and can't be easily narrowed down to an exact age that applies accurately to everyone.

There is no point in punishing teens for having sex with each other. It will not stop teens from having sex. They will all continue having sex when they start feeling the urges and having the opportunities, and in the rare cases where they're caught and prosecuted like this, they'll be put through undue strife and misery for no real demonstrable benefit. It solves nothing. In fact, there's nothing that really will "solve" it.

And if there is no solution, there can't really be a problem. A problem without a solution is just an event, and we just have to learn to deal with that event on an individual basis.
posted by EtJabberwock at 11:39 PM on December 11, 2006


Yes, torticat, but this is one of those situations where a parent is better off saying "I don't really think this is a good idea at your age, but if you do it anyway, here's how to do it safely". You know, instead of "If you get so much as a little knocked up, missy, you're out of this house!" (a sentiment frequently used by the parents of some of my female friends early in life). We need to work towards building a culture of acceptance, rather than one of repression.
posted by tehloki at 8:00 AM on December 12, 2006


Doohickie, your childhood must have been sterile and repressed. What issue do you have with sexuality outside the arbitrary societal "maturity ages?"

First of all, where did "sterile and repressed" come from? My parents were no prudes and made it plain they loved each other including sexually. The issue I have with sexuality of kids I stated in my first post:

"How about RESPONSIBILTY? She is in no position to take responsible care of her kid; she can't even drive it to the doctor... She may be sexually mature enough to bear a child, but not mentally or emotionally mature to be responsible for its care."
posted by Doohickie at 7:52 PM on December 12, 2006


But should a person be banned from doing something simply because there is a chance that, if done irresponsibly, it can lead to negative consequences?

Please stop conflating sex with pregnancy. Not all sexual activity results in or guarantees a pregnancy. In fact, in the last three and a half years, with responsible condom use, even on the rare occasion the condom exploded or slipped (in which case she's gotten Plan B for free from Planned Parenthood, which is, I would like to remind everyone, birth control and not an abortion pill), I've never gotten my girlfriend/fiance pregnant.

I'm certainly not ready for a baby, and neither is she. Neither of us really want one for at least another couple years. I have a great job and her parents are rich, and we still don't feel we're ready for it. That doesn't mean we're not ready for sex. And I'm not sure why you feel that turning sixteen or eighteen automatically makes someone ready or responsible enough for a baby, or somehow more ready than a thirteen or fourteen year old. That still doesn't mean they're not ready for responsible sex.

Plus, uh, I mean, oral?
posted by EtJabberwock at 11:19 AM on December 13, 2006


Dude. Come on. Anyone who's ever known a 12 or 13 year old knows that they're worlds apart in terms of responsibility and understanding and emotional development than a 16 or 18 year old.

I would not trust a 12 year old to be able to use birth control consistently and correctly -- particularly considering that many people much older than that have trouble doing so. Sure there are some 12 year olds on the margin who would be responsible enough to comply, but those are few and far apart. Not that I think it should be necessarily illegal, but no sane parent would be happy about their 12 year old having sex. And suggesting that a 12 or 13 year old could be a competent parent just goes beyond the realm of reality. Not to mention that 12 year olds have better things to do than get involved in intense, sexual boyfriend-girlfriend relationships.
posted by footnote at 1:04 PM on December 13, 2006


The issue is ultimately whether it should be illegal. Which breaks down (in perhaps an oversimplified way) into a few different questions:

What effect does punishment have for violation of the law? Is it an effective deterrent? Does punishment teach any more of a lesson beyond that which is learned by the natural consequences of the offender's actions? Does it provide reinforcement for parents or does it punish parents when they have difficulty exercising unrealistically precise control over their children's actions? Who does this law protect? How? (Etc.)

Maturity happens to different people at different ages. Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere, but it's up to the parents to figure that out, not the government. You're right--nobody sane would be happy about their nine-year-old or eleven-year-old kid running off and banging the girl/boy down the street. But if it happens, you just deal with it.

Making a law also constrains things to unnecessary and arbitrary specificity. There is no real change that takes place between the night before a person's, say, sixteenth birthday and the following day. Making a legal distinction between the two (and enforcing it so strongly) is ridiculous and unrealistic, and there's no reason for it. It's setting a qualifier (and an arbitrary one, at that) on something that's actually quantifiable. It's like setting a legal number for how many punches, exactly, constitute "battery". "Sorry, lady, you were only hit three times. That's not technically abuse."

I have never said that they would be a competent parent. What I've said, and will say again now, is that sex and procreation are two different things, and can be separated from each other. Maturity levels are different for each. There are plenty of eighteen year olds, even, who are not mature enough for children, but definitely mature enough for sex. If a teenager is mature enough for sex, they'll know how to do it safely and responsibly. If not, then they shouldn't be allowed to. It's a parental decision. If someone feels a parent isn't doing their job in this respect, charges can be filed and it can be taken to court where both sides can make a case for the responsibility levels of the child in question. Quiz them on safe sex practices and knowledge of potential consequences of their actions, or something.

And again, oral sex? Dildos? Anal sex? How do any of these lead to pregnancy? So why ban kids from doing them because they're "not old enough to raise a baby"? It's like banning someone from using a computer that doesn't have any internet access because they might hack someone's website.
posted by EtJabberwock at 1:38 PM on December 13, 2006


EtJabberwock: Nay, it's worse: it's like banning somebody from using a super nintendo because you fear they might write the blaster worm.
posted by tehloki at 1:00 AM on December 15, 2006


« Older Big riches   |   $0.002 != $0.00002 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments