General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Atman) on Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:10 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
closeupready
(29,503 posts)would you be so nonchalant? You'll say you would (and maybe that's so), but most people wouldn't actually be so nonchalant.
More to the point, boys will be boys, but a 33-year-old mother is not a boy. On edit, I meant, a exotic dancer/stripper woman.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not mere nudity. We really need to get rid of the Puritanism in this country.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)The US is not mature enough!
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)in a loving, committed relationship sanctified by law, or in an extrajudicial CIA "black site" gulag, respectively.
Dpm12
(512 posts)WTF?
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Just sayin'
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)It's about titillation. I was in art classes when I was younger than 16, drawing nude models. That's different from going to a strip club or getting a lap dance. Not that I necessarily think this is so shockingly horrible.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Without the embarrassment of having all your buddies in the same room no less.
You are correct in that it's a little more than nudity. I'm just not sure it matters considering what else is available.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The question I have is that 16 year olds these days have sex. It's even expected. So if they have sex themselves, how can even a stripper be harmful?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)post 135. the average age for boy and girl is over 17.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)This was sexual titillation designed to acculturate impressionable teens into viewing women as sex objects.
Sorry, but I'm with the "prudes" on this one. Teaching young boys the fun of degrading women is unquestionably endangering their moral character.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Judy Viger, 33, of Gansevoort is charged with five counts of endangering the welfare of a child, District Attorney James Murphy said in a statement. The parents of five teens who attended the party reported the presence of strippers to police.
The complaining parents found out that the strippers had been at the November 3 bowling party through photos posted on Facebook. The parents took the pictures to the South Glens Falls police, who then started taking witness statements, the district attorney's statement says.
One of the photos distributed by the district attorney's office shows Viger receiving a lap dance from one of the hired dancers; another picture shows a young male with another nearly nude dancer on top of him with her legs around his head.
"As difficult as it may be for us to have to weigh in on these kinds of cases, certainly exposing the unsuspecting children to this sort of 'entertainment' goes beyond the pale when it comes to what is appropriate for 14, 15 and 16 year old child," Murphy said in the statement.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/us/new-york-strippers-teen-party/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I mean endangering the welfare of a child is pretty broad; i'm guessing there are specific definitions of what that is.
Bryant
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or fed porn... i am gonna be all over that parent.
the height of juvenile to do this, but to do it with others kids.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And i definitely think the other parents have cause for a lawsuit - i'm just curious about the contours of the crime she is being charged for.
Bryant
Atman
(31,464 posts)The risks of injury, addiction, adverse health, etc, are clearly physical endangerments to a child. How is a nude woman rubbing her crotch against a 16 year old man-child (16 is legal to get married in some states) "endangerment?" We may think it's gross or disgusting, but ENDANGERMENT?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Is a 14-15 year old prepared emotionally to deal with the emotions and passions engendered by seeing a stripper?
Bryant
Atman
(31,464 posts)What if he is? I first had sex on my 15 birthday. But, I grew up on the beach in Florida, everyone was "half naked" (probably more like 7/8ths naked) all the time. When we surfed, we changed in front of each other right in the parking lot. No one cared. Who is the one to determine what is "proper" and what is "endangering" a 16 year old? I'd never consider a stripper at a 12 year old's party okay, and I don't think it is appropriate for a 16 year old's party, either. My question, one more time, is how is this "endangerment" to a sixteen year old?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we did the same.
strippin' is not just about naked, as much as you want to pretend.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Why do you insist on using phrases like that? Where have I said any such thing? STOP MAKING SHIT UP just to attempt to make your point! Just stop it!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)YOU are the one that is putting it out there.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Keep it churning...keep trying to make up shit to put words in my mouth about YOUR personal perceptions.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)I've been very consistent with my position that the mother was stupid, it was bad parenting, that nudity should not be considered "criminal," etc. Very consistent. And you've consistently conflated and twisted my words to try to claim I am saying something I'm not. This is very common for you, we've had these types of ridiculous back-and-forths several times. It's your style, I understand that...if it involves sex, you're the first one to claim all men are evil pigs and don't understand anything about anything. Thank you for straightening me out, once again.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what i have done is thrown your own words back at you. the posts are here for all to see. the words you type.
now, do show me where i have claimed all men are evil pigs. in all your righteousness.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You keep asking what is the crime, and I keep telling you....
A parent procuring a sex worker to touch their minor child is a crime!!
What is so difficult to get? What part element of that crime do you dispute?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If i have a statute number i can look it up almost certainly, but don't have time to go through things.
Bryant
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It's possible she just feels that you don't understand anything about anything.
Bryant
Atman
(31,464 posts)It's her body of work here on DU. All men who don't accept that anything to do with sex is bad are frowned upon. Women are always oppressed by bad, bad men. Has she used the term "evil pigs?" I doubt it. But if she can make up shit about what I posted, I am free to interpret her words with similar flair.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Consider - she acts in a way that you don't like (I don't see it myself, but lets go with it for a moment). So you feel justified in doing back to her what she does to you? Doesn't that put you in a morally grey area? Or if you feel something is wrong, isn't it wrong all the time?
Bryant
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"that the mother was stupid, it was bad parenting..."
As opposition to nudity and stripping is indeed mere prudishness as clarified to us many times, what then (precisely and with relevance) makes the mother's actions bad parenting?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)"If it involves sex..." Because this actually DID involve sex. There was contact made at a birthday party. Contact by a sex worker on a minor who had been dropped off by parents expecting that child to be supervised by a parent who would provide bowling, cake, cookies and soft drinks. Not a sex worker's crotch rubbed in his face with photos to prove it forever more.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)She's charged with "endangering the welfare of a child."
And while I think the majority of us - clearly including Atman - aren't defending this mother's decision, and hold that it's excessively stupid, I'm failing to see the "endangerment" aspect of it.
Could you maybe help me out and explain?
susanr516
(1,512 posts)regarding sex acts with minors. I don't know of any state that says 14-year-old children have reached the age of consent. I'm a little surprised the stripper wasn't charged, too. Maybe she didn't know the boys weren't legal adults when she agreed to dance. However, I think the stripper should have refused to perform once she realized she had an audience of kids.
My children are all adults now, but had this happened to one of them (male or female) when they were minors, I would have been livid. I'm not a prude, I just don't like the idea of exotic dancers (male or female) being stared at like they are pieces of meat. I think it's disgusting.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and having to change in public to go from a wet suit to a restaurant, ya....
Atman
(31,464 posts)My wife was a swimmer. The "meet suits" they used to wear in training were literally transparent. My best friend and I used to go watch the swim team practice just because the girls (and guys) were essentially naked, because the suits were so thin.
Gorp
(716 posts)... accused me of being at "half mast" right in front of a bunch of girls in bikinis. Yeah, so I was, but still. What 8th grade boy wouldn't be? That's about as close to naked as a guy can get without going full monty or paying a visit to Victoria's Secret for some all-lace undies. At the time I was mortified. It wouldn't bother me a bit now. After you spend a few times in a hospital with a catheter you pretty much lose that "pride" thing, and that's especially true when giving birth. Any mother will confirm that.
Some of the bikinis out there are pretty much equivalent. My daughters won't wear anything like that, but my wife does. She doesn't like padded tops so string bikinis are her preference for comfort. She doesn't own any underwire bras and rarely wears anything other than sports bras. If she's not at work or exercising then the bra thing doesn't exist. I know they're most helpful for many women, but she's in the range where it's not necessary under most circumstances.
This post isn't directly related to the thread other than I agree with the OP on one thing - make the arbitrary age consistent. Driving, alcohol, military service, legal sex, gun ownership, stripping, whatever it is. Pick an age and call it "adult". There's a pretty major disconnect in how we treat various activities and the associated legal ages. I think the 4-year difference in age rule should remain in place for sex, but that's mostly because I've known a lot of guys (mostly) who have taken advantage of far younger under-18 girls. Four years is a reasonable spread for relationships in the near-adult years. Beyond that you get into major maturity differences and likelyhood of abuse of those differences increases dramatically.
There was a house that we hung out at a lot in high school, mostly because the girl's mom let us smoke (including pot). One of my good friends at the time was dating a 12 year old. He was 16, but just barely within the 4 year rule. The girl's mom (of the house) had a boyfriend named Pete. One day he got caught with the 12-year old, examining her parts. He came up with some lame excuse about helping her because she had an "ingrown pussy hair" (whatever that's supposed to mean). None of us trusted him after that.
My friend also wasn't this 12-year old's first lay. It should be obvious, but she had a rather unpleasant home life. Frankly we should have called the cops on Pete, but we probably didn't because there was a tray of pot and a bong on the coffee table. There usually was.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That would have the definition of what harm constitutes.
Bryant
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)Nudity is fine. But the law usually draws a line at when the nudity was done for sexual arousal/gratification.
I'll agree far too many people are charged with sex crimes for innocent displays of their naughty bits - i.e. peeing in the woods, or the guy who was arrested for walking around nude in his OWN house where some nosy body could see ... etc.
But this WAS done for sexual arousal and gratification.
The stripper is probably guilty of statutory rape and the mother endangerment because she arranged the situation that lead to said rape. The mother put the child in the situation. That's the endangerment.
I can't help but think you would view this differently if it was a thirty year old man rubbing his balls on a 14-15-16 year old girl's head and face.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I agree with pretty much all of it. Although I still don't understand why we make consensual sex of any kind "criminal." Why is 18 the official age for sex? It's silly. That's not to say it's okay to have sex with kids or anything like that, it's just a question...why is 18 now the magic age, when some states say you can marry at 16? Are you then entering into a criminal arrangement?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)that minor's are barred from and therefore incapable to give informed consent to sex or sex acts
cali
(114,904 posts)In NY it's 17, but in many states it's 16 and in some it's 15.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)so I am thinking statutory rape is not in play.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#New_York
"Sex," as used above, refers to the four conspicuous types of sexual acts, including "sexual intercourse", "oral sexual conduct" (both types), and "anal sexual conduct." The latter three acts were known by statute as "deviant sexual intercourse" prior to 2003.
Non-intercourse sexual activity is also regulated based on age. Non-intercourse sexual activity, called "sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. It includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing." (NY Penal Law § 130.00[3].) If the person is underage such "sexual contact" can constitute the crime of "sexual abuse."
"Sexual contact" with a person less than 17 but at least 14, by a perpetrator who is at least five years older than the victim is "Sexual abuse in the third degree," a class B misdemeanor. (NY Penal Law § 130.55.)
"Sexual contact" with a person less than 14 is "Sexual abuse in the second degree," a Class A misdemeanor, if the perpetrator is at least 16. (NY Penal Law § 130.60[2].)
"Sexual contact" with a person less than 11 is "Sexual abuse in the first degree," a class "D" violent felony, if the perpetrator is at least 16. (NY Penal Law § 130.65[3].)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I'm taking sides, just trying to understand why that would be the charge. Perhaps, molestation, but statutory rape?
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)Every state has specific terms from sexual deviancy to sexual assault to sexual intercourse to "touching" with the intent of sexual gratification etc. etc etc.
Penetration doesn't need to be involved for a sex crime.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And yes, sex crimes such as rape don't have to involve sex. But I would think statutory rape would require the involvement of sex since consent is not required.
Though, I'm no lawyer.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)I guess I could have said statutory sexually related crime. I don't know if ANY state uses the term "statutory rape" but it is often used as a catch all. Perhaps too strong in this case because, right or wrong, people often assume penetration when the word rape is used.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)No one knows how the police would have reacted if everyone there was 16 and over.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)their face.
have you raised a son? i know we like to pretend they are all that sexually and pretend they are not kids. but, the reality is, they are human beings that have a young emotional state and not matured in that area. i can see many boys uncomfortable being put in this position, surrounded by peers feeling pressure, regardless of adults assigning to them their perception of sexual want.
it is NOT another parents position to decide what a child is ready for, in the adult world.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I don't see in the article wear anyone was FORCED to stay and enjoy the show. In fact, they posted pics of it on their Facebook pages, they were so traumatized.
We do agree on one thing, which I have posted repeatedly, and which you choose to ignore...it was not the mother's place to decide to put underage children in front of a stripper. Period. It was NOT her place to do that, and I've said nothing other than that. What I asked was, there is a CRIME being alleged, that the boy was "endangered." No one has been able to explain how he was "endangered," rather than the mother just being STUPID.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is not a defense.
For example, a defense to statutory rape, is not "I didn't force her."
A defense to taking nude pictures of a 13 years old (the age of one of the guests at the party) is not "I didn't force her to take off her clothes."
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)to prove they are hip and cool and part of the "in" crowd.
Posting pics on Facebook does not preclude being traumatized.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)There were 14 year old kids and maybe even younger ones in attendance.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think she's facing sex crime charges.
GaYellowDawg
(5,101 posts)DAMN right. On both counts.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Or is that just some movie trope?
sir pball
(5,340 posts)Here's the deal in NY (emphasis added):
Subsection 1 of New York's Penal Law § 260.10 provides that any man or woman who intentionally acts in a way likely to cause injury to the physical or mental welfare of a child, or who intentionally acts in a way that could injury the moral welfare of a child 16 years old or younger is guilty of the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.
I can at least buy that argument for these charges since they're playing very loosely with the definition of "endangerment".
sir pball
(5,340 posts)But I've only ever heard of that as a formal charge in PA; a quick Google doesn't show anything on the books in NY. I like it as a concept - while a stripper in front of teens is NOT "endangerment" it is certainly not appropriate or acceptable (I mean, I'd have LOVED it at the time but...yeah) and a more loosely defined less-severe charge of "corruption" seems entirely fitting.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)would not want strippers at a birthday party. What that pundit said was 'I don't believe there are gay teenagers and don't give a fuck about them if they exist because I have this line I want to say about how fun it is to see strippers."
So yes, to the extent that such social events are used as a form of intimidation of those who really don't care to see strippers many years older and of the opposite sex such an event could in fact be unpleasant, and that sort of thing adds up to a rather vicious message- 'we are putting this in your face unasked and we expect you to express delight in what you see, if you don't you should expect the treatment we straights dole out to those who are different'.
Atman
(31,464 posts)While I find it difficult to believe most 16 year old boys would find a nude woman "unpleasant," I certainly accept the premise that the parents of those other kids should have been informed. After all, they're minors, and the parents may not have (mostly likely would not have) approved.
But listening to Rush Limbaugh is "unpleasant." And I would say, far more likely to "endanger" a child than the image of a human body. Why do we have laws against "unpleasantness?"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If a 'friend' had done that to me, I would have been very angry at that abuse. I would not expect straight guys to enjoy a male stripper, and in my opinion to assume that others are straight is pure prejudice, to design events around a presumption that all would enjoy a lap dance from a scantly clad woman is to presume there are no gay people in the world.
If you'd like, I can send a buff young man in a sparkly jock strap to lap dance for you, we can film your reaction and if it is not suitably excited and frothy, we can then call you a Puritan who is afraid of some guy's package just because it is being pushed into his face. Because the ONLY reason you'd not get off on such a dancer would be Puritanism, or your discomfort with nudity, your own sexuality is not a point in fact at all, we'd need to see some lust in your eyes, or we'd know you were just anti sex and really hung up about it. If you did not drool a bit we could say you have 'issues' and perhaps are not as 'mature' as the other guys, the gay guys.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I guess because someone might be gay, there should be no "surprise" strippers, ever. 
Personally, I'd have no problem if some buffed hunk showed up as a surprise stripper...I'd deal, but I'm a liberal Democrat. A friend of ours is actually a drag queen, and very flamboyantly gay. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean, he enjoys and celebrates his lifestyle, and is not shy about it. So, it just doesn't bother me. He's always been a wonderful person and a good friend, so it's not an issue. It is YOU doing the defining of what should be right and wrong. If I can accept a gay drag queen kissing me and pulling me out onto the dance floor, why can't a gay man accept a nude woman?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And yes, you did miss the point. If a friend put you in a position where you felt pressured to take a public lap dance from a man and express that you enjoyed it sexually, you'd get pissed off.
I dance with women all the time, my friend, I've danced with women so famously sexy that the mere sight of one of their 'boobies' caused scandal across the land. That is not the same as having her scissor my head. A nude woman is not the same as a sexually charged performance. Of course, dear heart, I can accept a nude woman, I do not accept strippers in my lap for the pleasure of onlookers. Those two things are not the same. To suggest that they are is dishonest, as it is dishonest to claim that having a dance with your friend (dressed as a woman) is anything like having a lap dance from a stranger who is hardly dressed at all.
And of course, you and I are not 14.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Being gay is being gay. Some people are just gay. Some people are gay and celebrate it, like my friend, who has a girl name along with his real name. He chooses to hang out in drag bars, and is very outgoing, as opposed to people we all know who are just "gay." IOW, it is a "lifestyle." Just as being a surfer is a "lifestyle" or any other "lifestyle" one might choose. I didn't say it was a "choice," if that is what you are inferring. Gay, straight, or in-between, and don't think ANYONE should be forced to have another person wrap their legs around one's head, clothed or unclothed. You're just making assumptions that one of these teenagers might have been gay, therefore it was wrong to have a female stripper. It's an assumption not backed up anywhere in the story, but I understand your point. The whole damned thing was wrong! It matters not whether the stripper or the kids were male or female.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)people dress in drag while those who are not in drag are less outgoing. Being a cross dresser and being gay are entirely separate things.
Note you actual words here: :Just as being a surfer is a "lifestyle" or any other "lifestyle" one might choose. I didn't say it was a "choice...."
But you did, you said like a surfer or anything else one might choose. And I repeat, being gay is not a lifestyle and dressing in drag is not a measure of how outgoing or openly gay a person is as many gay men have no desire whatsoever to cross dress.
My initial comment on this subject was very clear. The pundit, and now you, assuming that all boys want a lap dance is an assumption that none are gay and also that all straight guys like strippers climbing on them, which I know is not the case. I know straight men who would bath in Purell for a week if such a person touched them. The assumptions are all your own.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I'm surprised that gayness and cross dressing are being conflated here.
And the perspective that you've added re: gay teens' feelings in these situations is not often mentioned, thanks for that too. The same principle applies to asexual people.
Atman
(31,464 posts)This is silly. I'm not going to get into a debate about how gay you have to be to be gay. I used a word, "lifestyle," that I meant in a different context from that in which you are taking it. You've mistaken me for someone else...I've never stated that "all boys want a lap dance." I just didn't say that. I merely pointed out that we know NOTHING about the boys in the picture. You're assuming that some of them might be gay, and therefore shouldn't have a female stripper grinding her stuff in their faces. I'm saying that we don't know if anyone was straight or gay. You're inventing an argument to fit your needs. Sure, one of those guys might have been gay. Oh, heavens! So what? I've been to strip clubs...say "no thanks," and the dancer will move on.
You still entirely missed my point about the word "lifestyle." One can be gay and in a great relationship without living an overtly gay "lifestyle." Such as my friend. I have a couple of gay friends that you'd never assume to be gay. And then there is my friend I mentioned earlier who embraces the gay "lifestyle." Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not disparaging anyone. I surf, but I'm not part of the surfer "lifestyle." It's just a freakin' word!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)people who do not dress in drag do not live like gay people. This is extremely offensive to everyone involved, I'd guess particularly to all those heterosexual cross dressing men. There is no way of living that is gay, no way of living that is not gay. There is no gay lifestyle, there are just lots of gay people living lots of lives in lots of ways, exactly as it is among straight people.
Your friends you'd not assume were gay? I would assume they are gay. Because I don't see 'gay' as meaning any one particular thing other than being sexually attracted to the same sex. Just exactly as straight means nothing more that opposite sex attraction, some straight men love opera and fine fabrics and don't want to get their wee pinkies dirty and some gay men are linebackers who drink brewskis and don't do the laundry often enough.
My original post in this thread addressed the media message that follows tales of underage boys and older women. The pundit I heard declare that he can not imagine ANY 16 year old boy not wanting a stripper to lap dance him while his Mom watched. I object to that because there ARE 16 year old boys who are gay, and you know, there are some straight boys who probably don't really want Mommy to watch them pop a boner. For such kids to hear on TV that it is deviant for them NOT to want to get horny around Mom or not with the opposite sex at all is really fucked up.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)It has been interesting and I'm sure it has been informative. You explained everything perfectly. And you didn't lose your temper. Good job. We still need conversations like this, which should be painfully obvious. So, even though I'm sorry that the term was used I'm very glad to see your responses.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)yardwork
(69,364 posts)Your friend "who has a girl name along with his real name" and "chooses to hang out in drag bars" is not necessarily gay. And what the fuck do you mean by "people we all know who are just 'gay.' IOW it is a 'lifestyle.'"
This is incredible.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Stephen/Allysha is GAY. Totally, totally gay. There is so much ignorance in your reply, I don't know where to begin. You don't think I know when a friend of mine is gay? Really? When I say we know people who are "just gay," I'm not saying anything deep. Nothing to be shocked about. I mean, simply, that there are friends like Stephen who are outwardly, celebratory gay. It is a "lifestyle." There are other people we know who are gay, but you'd never know it. Is that so hard to understand? Why is this such an issue with you? Just read my words and try not to get automatically defensive.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)and your posts in this thread are insulting, derogatory, and just plain ignorant.
IT'S NOT A LIFESTYLE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
Atman
(31,464 posts)YOU STILL MISS MY POINT! You're gay. Okay. You just don't understand what I'm saying, you want to get all hung up on one simple word. My boss several years ago was gay. Big deal. He was gay, everyone was aware, he didn't hide it. So what. My friend which I mentioned, Stephen, lives the LIFESTYLE of being outwardly, flamboyantly gay. I'm not making any judgements, maybe I'm describing it wrong, but I don't know why it is so hard to understand.
I used my surfing as an example. I surf. There is a surfing lifestyle. Some people just live on the beach and have hibiscus bumper stickers and leave, eat, sleep surf. They are "surfers." They life the surfing lifestyle. Some of us, though, just surf. We just surf when we can. We are surfers, but we don't live the surfing lifestyle 24/7. Why can that be used to describe my friend Stephen, as opposed to my old boss? Stephen flaunts his gayness. He loves it, and so do I. My old boss just wore his suit to work every day and didn't make any big deal about it. If "lifestyle" is wrong, I'm sorry. Educate me. I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything, I just don't know how else to describe it.
It's like the gay pride parades...why do some people want to march down the street in leather chaps and dog collars, while others just say "I'm gay?" I don't think I'm out of line here.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)Like surfing or scrapbooking or what the hell ever.
WTF
This thread has been very illuminating about you.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Really? I'm sorry if "lifestyle" is the wrong word for you. I don't know how much more clearly I can explain it. Being gay is not a "lifestyle." It is just being gay. But, what you deliberately want to ignore, is exactly what I pointed out...you can surf, but not live the perceived surfer lifestyle. You can be gay, but not live the lifestyle many equate with being gay. That is NOT saying that being gay is merely a lifestyle. It is saying, deny it all you want, that there is a perceived "gay" lifestyle. It's maybe what your mom or dad thinks. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it IS. There are people who are not gay who assume that being gay means being a drag queen or hanging out in gay bars. A PERCEIVED lifestyle. It doesn't mean "gay" is a lifestyle.
I am an artist. I don't were berets, although I used to have a studio in an old mill building, and I frequently painted while naked, listening to Tory Amos. Again, I can't stress this enough...I am NOT saying gay is a "lifestyle." I'm saying there is a perceived gay lifestyle, which is totally separate from sexuality.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... breakdown here. Your posts about 'lifestyle' are homophobic and the 'skanky snatch' reference is extremely sexist.
Stop, apologize and take a break from here. Preferably of at least a week or so.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)abortion? they are either young grown-ups or they are not
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)[IMG]
[/IMG]
http://now.msn.com/judy-viger-allegedly-hired-strippers-for-sons-bowling-alley-birthday-party
Atman
(31,464 posts)If it is, then yeah...that's a bit over the top for a 16 year old's birthday party. But she's not even NAKED!
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)And I don't have any more info on the nature of the nakedness and/or physical contact. She may plead down or just get a warning. I don't think jail time is appropriate.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Hard to tell, but to me it looks like the guys there are a bit older than 16.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I thought the same thing.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)This gets slippery when you begin looking at adult/minor sex abuse laws.
They are currently investigating to make sure there was no sexual contact, even accidental, between the dancers and the kids.
I am personally of the opinion that kids will find their own way and do not need help from adults. Let them move at their own pace. Even if the woman felt her own son was mature enough and would be comfortable with this type of "entertainment", she definitely had no right to evaluate this for the other boys and girls attending. It could be considered social coercion to force kids to participate or observe this type of thing. Isn't there enough pressure on kids already?
WCGreen
(45,558 posts).HELL YES!!!!!
But since I am no longer 16, I don't think strippers are appropriate for anyone under 18.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)"Endangering" is simply the name of the charge, which they're using to see if anything else is going on.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Thinking my wife and I would be pissed, seeing it as inapproriate.
Especially if they got as friendly as in the posted pics.
Atman
(31,464 posts)As much as we hate to admit it, there are differences between boys and girls. Girls tend to be smart, for instance. Except for this kid's mom, who apparently found herself pregnant at 14. Her world view is probably jaded. I'm not saying it's right, just pointing out that the "bad parenting" seems to have begun when this woman was just a child herself. Personally, I don't have a problem with nudity at all. I've been to nude beaches and nude resorts. Funny thing is, once you accept "nudity" as just a person with no clothes on, "strippers" aren't very appealing. We make such a big deal about nudity in our Puritanical culture that it becomes tantalizing. It's silly.
But to answer your question directly, I absolutely would not want some hunk sticking his junk in my 14 year old daughter's face. But apparently, the mom had it stuck into more than her face, so apparently didn't find it as offensive. What, exactly, is the "crime?" Grossness?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)What is your problem with nudity? Seeing some cut chest is harmless, why would you care if your daughter saw one? How would 'junk in her face' harm her?
Procuring services for a minor that are illegal for a minor to procure for his or herself is in fact a crime in most places. Like buying them alcohol or giving them drugs or buying pornography for them, legal for you, not legal for you to give to kids.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Why is it special? At that magical age, you can die in war, but not drink. You are an "adult" but you can't rent a car. What makes 18 special? A piece of paper some guy wrote and got passed into law. Ask the 16 year old whether or not he was "endangered" by having a skanky snatch ground in his face. He'd probably disagree with you. But give him two years, then it's all okay.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Usually after they've been foolish enough to voice that question to the police arresting them.
Atman
(31,464 posts)It is the law, I certainly understand that. What do you answer your clients (I'm assuming you're a lawyer?). What makes 18 the magical age, or is it just "the law," and therefore it's all that matters? I don't recall feeling any different on my 17 birthday than I did on my 18th. I had been having sex, drinking, working for myself...why is 18 magic?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)clients.
Why is it 18? Because the state decided so. If you don't like it, well this is a democracy. File a suit, or elect enough legislators to overturn the oppression.
How do you not get that a parent procuring a sex worker to touch their minor child while other minors watch is a crime?
I ask that question, and then I remember that I stopped doing juvenile defense because the I could not deal with the supposed adults entrusted to care for these kids...
Atman
(31,464 posts)Which one of my posts did you miss? Where did I say it was not a crime, or that the parent of the 16 yo boy is an idiot? Where? That wasn't the question I asked, it's just the one you want to answer. I understand that procuring a sex worker for a minor is a crime! I get it, I've stated so in several posts. But what is the CRIME in seeing a naked woman, other than that it is on the books? Why did we, as a society, determine that a 17 year old cannot see someone naked, but an 18 year can? And why? Please don't tell me I "don't get it." That just avoids my question.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)issue.
You, Atman, are the one who insists that someone, somewhere, is being charged with a crime for seeing a naked woman. Kindly cite the case you are talking about. Because apparently you now agree with me that Ms. Viger's charges do not stem from "seeing a naked woman."
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)every day...geez...this thread is ridiculous.....parents, shelter your babies forever!!! God forbid a baby sees a nude woman! The horrors!!!
Another lawsuit...another person wanting revenge by suing or getting the cops involved
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Didn't you take your husband's first wife to court to lower the child-support payments he had to pay? I remember you bragging about being his "lawyer."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=903643&mesg_id=907772
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)How long did it take you to find a 2 year old post??? LOL
17 year olds can enlist if they have their HS diploma and a parent's signature.
Yeah....child support hearings and a police record as the same. WTF.
Your user name is appropriate.
As long as someone wrote on a piece of paper, it's cool.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)The fact that you remember crap from over 2 years ago should be a problem.
And get your facts straight before you post.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Please do not fault me for remembering what you bragged about.
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)...can enlist but cant go to a combat zone until they are 18.
Atman
(31,464 posts)There are hundreds of stories of kids faking their ages to go off to die in WWII. That's cool. No prob. Just don't get laid.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Faking? There really isn't a world of difference between a 16 yr old and a 17 yr old...no "faking" necessary - perfectly legal
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)Not all laws are good. Unless you can profit from them.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Really Atman?
This thread is eye opening about how you perceive women and equality.
Atman
(31,464 posts)You don't know me at all. It was just an offhand stripper reference -- did you see the picture? Don't conflate it into being a comment about "women" and "equality." I've done so much work for NARAL and NOW, and some of it you've likely even seen. I can say an old hairy dude is fat and smelly without saying I hate men. I can say a kid might not want a skanky snatch rubbed in his face without it being a indictment against all women.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as you promote giving this to teenage boys.
it amazes me the men that tell us women how respectful you are toward the stripper, until you are not.
which is a feminist position in not believing men when they say they have all this respect for the stripper and do not see her as a thing to demean and use and degrade.
Atman
(31,464 posts)It's okay to call out men for being nasty pigs, but ever cast aspersions on any woman! So sayeth Seabeyond.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what i posted.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)
rolling.
NO WOMAN deserves misogynistic language, Not one.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they do not like to be challenged. they need all men to feel like they do, and some insist ALL boys feel the same.
not a reality.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"Snatch" is very much like the C word only it implies filthiness as well.
"Skanky" has some nasty assumptions too.
Unless you personally know her and how often she bathes, it's not just an offhand reference about her. It's a suggestion that women's genitals are filthy and "skanky."
Atman
(31,464 posts)I don't know the woman. Therefore, it was not a direct personal reference. What if that kid in the pic was thinking "damn, I don't want this skanky snatch in my face!" Is he quilty of disparaging all women? The point is, we don't know her, we don't know what the kid was thinking, we're all just making assumptions.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)How about if it was a black stripper, and he used a racist adjective? By your logic, that would just be an "offhand remark," and wouldn't be racist, nor make him a racist.
Quit doubling down. You were wrong.
Atman
(31,464 posts)There is always someone on DU to be offended about something.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)You should be ashamed for calling any woman's genitals that.
Saying it was just an "offhand remark," about a stripper just makes it worse.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)
And in some states you can/could be legally married way before 18. I haven't checked lately, but it seems to me female marriage around 13 or so was perfectly fine at one time in some states.
US has ALWAYS has this sex thing. I thought the US would eventually grow out of it, it's better, but damn in so many ways the US is sexually backward. I grew up being told masturbation would DEFINITELY make one blind, or at minimal insane. Just how F'ed up is that.
I have one friend that to this day thinks if he touches himself that is evil, but being super promiscuous is the way to go so one does not ever do the evil masturbation bit against god's will. How F'ed up is that too ...
For reference, here are the state marriage laws for age requirements. It seems to me it should be consistent across the US.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml
Atman
(31,464 posts)Msantrhope seems to think that merely ASKING the question, and the origins of our weird laws, means I "don't get it." It is a crime, therefore that is all that needs to be known. My stepfather used to tell me that about pot...he didn't care about whether it was natural, or what role DuPont played in making it illegal, or anything else other than that it was a crime, and therefore you don't do it. He also never exceeded the speed limit. Not sure if he ever cheated on his taxes.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)What age would YOU think is too young? Any? None?
NO level of maturity needed for consent?
Maybe you never had kids. But please keep away from mine.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am soooo, feeling the same with a couple of the posters on this thread.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)just our hang-ups about sex and nudity that are ridiculous'.
How enlightening & comforting - for them.
Cheers!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)was to point out the inconsistency in state laws. How a state could have advocated 13 year olds getting married is beyond me.
Atman
(31,464 posts)No one in this thread is advocating sex with children.
I have to grown kids, and one beautiful granddaughter. You're just pulling stuff out of thin air, as no one has said it is okay for someone to have sex with your children. That is Fox News style. Fear and paranoia before facts. We're talking about a 16 year old young man seeing a naked woman.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Apparently age isn't the issue though.
YOU WERE talking about a '16yr old seeing nudity', but the conversation changed some, and the reality was a bit more involved wasn't it?
Maybe you should re-read his post. Its all about our hangups with sex don't ya know.
edit: poster referred to explained his meanings, and clarified my take was not his intention.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)there is an incongruence / conflict in what are appropriate ages. To me, it should he consistent across the board. 13? You gotta be kidding me.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Assuming we are talking about young girls...WHY are you all for it???
Talk about being F'ed up.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)laws.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)then 2) discuss female marriage at age 13 being fine. And 3) how F'ed up it is we have a hang-up with sex.
My mistake if this is not what you meant to convey.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Since age is no big qualifier for you - which age is too young/too old? Or should laws based on the perceived intelligence of the victims? Or simply in what YOU think they (would) prefer?
yardwork
(69,364 posts)Also, please take a look at your personal attacks against other posters in this thread and self-delete where needed. Thank you.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)It is misogynistic at BEST.
The only thing more appalling than your use of it is a jury leaving it. Just gross.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Because he would obviously dig that...what teenager wouldn't?
Along with his awesome Mom and teenage friends.
A stripper's snatch or a hunk's junk...its all good for the whole gang...as long as the Mom thinks its OK.
"I absolutely would not want some hunk sticking his junk in my 14 year old daughter's face. But apparently, the mom had it stuck into more than her face, so apparently didn't find it as offensive"
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)girl of course, would not like it.
i mean, sexism in every way of looking at this thread.
on edit... i am referencing one of AT's other posts where he says boys and girls are different in their wants.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And learn NOTHING new.
zaireeka
(31 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)And the expense of other 14/15 yr olds.
Girls this time. But hey - Mom thought it was ok!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It was the ancient Greeks (Athens, circa 500 BC) who arbitrarily chose the age of 18 to determine who could or could not vote in the nascent Athenian democracy. We have merely inherited that number from them (through the Roman Republic, of course). It was purely arbitrary, afaik. Now, it is merely an interesting historical relic, but it seems we are stuck with it.
-Laelth
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)My first comment on this thread was that every time one of these stories about older women messing with teen boys comes around I have to endure pundits and others who guffaw that they can't even imagine that any teen age boy would not love to do the same. It is the fact that such pundits and posters feel the need to state that even when thinking about it, they can't imagine that gay people exist. That's the message. All of them want strippers, all of them want to sleep with 'MILFS' and 'what kind of 16 year old boy wouldn't like that'? It all denies that there are gay kids.
Your terminology is crude and a stupid choice in this context, to say the least. But this kid you want me to ask, in your mind he would like that, in my mind the kid is gay, and would think of that party as 'why I had to get out of that town' material. That's kind of my point. You simply can't imagine (like the pundit) that any boy would like this, but I sure can. And I'm right, and that means that the pundit and yourself lack imagination, to put it kindly.
The age stuff is not anything I or you had been talking about and seems to be nothing more than a way for you to avoid speaking to what I am saying.
Treating a person like they were not there. That's what my first post was about. And it is what you are doing to me by repeatedly refusing to discuss what I said and instead demanding that I defend '18 being so special' which I never said. If you can't face the rhetorical heat, just back out of the kitchen, but don't come to me with some new subject arguing it as if I had spoken about it and demanding I answer questions from some point of view you assume I have.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Hateful beliefs and attitudes like this make DU suck.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)I stand corrected. Boys and girls are exactly the same. Exactly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Noting that fact is not lame, imho.
-Laelth
Laelth
(32,017 posts)No, not a smile ... my reaction was a definite LOL.
I shall quote directly from the "Declaration of Independence" in response ...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident ... "
I assert, quite confidently, that the differences between men and women are self-evident and do not require the proof that you demand.
-Laelth
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"there are differences between boys and girls..."
Those moral and ethical differences you so ill-define for us are merely observers holding two equals to unequal standards.
However, I do realize how we may need to rationalize our double-standards by accusing others of being Puritanical-- it's convenient and simplistic, and takes little effort or critical thought.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)would have been SOL if she went to a simliar party being given by a similiar parent.
ETA: Here's one now, w/14/15 yr old girls.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex/please-dont-lick-stripper
Wouldn't you be pissed? I know I would be, and likely most/all of my kids' friends' parents too.
Maybe THAT is why it's against the law?
Moosepoop
(2,075 posts)How do you figure that she "found herself pregnant at 14"? That had to be one looonngg pregnancy!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)What is the age at which the "differences between boys and girls" enable a girl to become competent to make her own decisions about what is traumatizing?
Do women ever reach adulthood, or are women just big children?
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Your thread title is, in effect, misleading, because now anyone who sees a problem with this appears to have a problem with nudity in general rather than a mom getting her kid a stripper.
Not a good way to frame a conversation about a sensitive issue unless you are looking for a flame war.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)No matter what some parents think about the sexual mores of our country, it's so much easier to just follow the law and not expose minors to sexually charged lap dances. It sounds like a no-brainer to me.
How in the world did this mother benefit her son and his friends? What did they gain from it other than sexual stimulation? I'd say they certainly got the message that women are supposed to act like these strippers since that's what mom evidently thinks.
Talk about teaching the bad lessons!
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Legally speaking, there is a reason we protect minors from certain things and keep certain privileges from them.
Whether or not this individual, or others at the party, were 'endangered' is sort of beyond the point. The law is the law, and if there are people here who honestly think that it should be changed to allow minors to hang out with strippers then *they* should be the one defending their position.
I think this thread is framed in such a way that it puts the wrong people on the defensive and frames a moral debate as a political/legal one.
Nine
(1,741 posts)This would certainly by true for a younger child, and I think it can be true for older minors as well. Some kids are sexually active at that age but many others are extremely innocent (and you could even argue that being sexually active doesn't necessarily diminish one's innocence).
Atman
(31,464 posts)What is the "endangerment" part? He might get a surge of testosterone? He might jerk off (at 16, he's probably done twice already today). Again, I don't argue that it was incredibly bad judgement on the part of the boy's mother. But what is the CRIME?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)You're focusing on the word "endangerment" and taking it to mean only endangerment of one's physical safety. One's well-being can be endangered in other ways. If another parent showed my young child a pornographic movie or a graphically violent movie, I would consider that parent to have endangered the psychological well-being of my child. Considering that pedophiles sometimes start out showing their victims pornography, I absolutely believe this should be considered a criminal offense. Maybe you think teenagers are too old to be afforded that protection under the law. If that is the case, you should make that argument instead of focusing on a narrow and irrelevant interpretation of "endangerment."
ETA - The strippers in this case did more than provide a "visual," but I'm addressing your hypothetical of what if were only a sexually explicit visual (and I don't think all nudity is sexually explicit, but this was).
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)I guess it's the desexualized nature of the nudity. In a nudist camp prepubescent children are seeing naked adults but there's no sexual context or contact so it's not considered a thing anymore than it would be amongst bush people in Africa.
I'd wager that there's more things to waggle fingers at in this household than just the stripper. Thank God I'm not the moral guardian of the country.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Thus, having a bikini clad stripper latched to your face is the exact same thing as seeing a naked breast on a nude beach. My conclusion from that is that the OP would be extremely creepy on a nude beach.
Atman
(31,464 posts)If you actually read my posts instead of just being a judgmental superior, you'd understand that that is NOT at all what I'm saying.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Just not accurate wording about a lap dance and a denial that not all boys are straight boys.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Stop putting words in my post! Just stop it!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Perhaps you were not well informed about the details of this party and thus your equation of the two was not intentional, but that does not mean the OP does not say this is all about seeing boobies when in the photos who lap dances and no 'boobies'.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Thanks for playing.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I've been to nudist resorts full of families raised with nudity. The kids don't see anything, because it is normal. Any parent knows that when your baby gets naked, he/she loves it, and fights when you try to put clothes back on. Clothes aren't natural, they're forced upon us. That said, wearing a g-string and wrapping your legs around someone's head isn't "nudity." I'm not arguing that what this woman did was right in any way. I'm just asking, again, what is the CRIME?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child while other minors are watching is a crime.
Looking at the picture above, I suspect that the 'endangering' charges are merely placeholders. There will be more serious charges down the pike.
If I were a parent of a child at this party, I would be suing the mom, the sex worker, the agency that provided her, the bowling alley, and everyone else I could think of.
Jersey Devil
(10,833 posts)In the article I read it said there was lap dancing, which even a mother with half a brain should know is entirely inappropriate at a 16 year old birthday party.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)It was a story on the television news. I woman hired a stripper for her son's 16 birthday party. There was no mention of 14 year olds, there were no pictures. CALM THE FUCK DOWN. I'm not equating getting your head scissored with "mere nudity." However, I'm still asking, what is the CRIME?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It's also a crime to have a stripper come to his 16th birthday party and give him a lap dance.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child while others watch is a crime.
Taking pictures of your minor child being serviced by a sex worker is a crime.
Seriously....you can't see the crimes here?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)+1
Javaman
(65,711 posts)as an art student, one of my drawing teachers said to us one day, I will bring in a model but sadly (half jokingly) they won't be nude. After class I asked about it and she said, they won't allow it, but it does make you a better artist.
A week later I found an "off campus" class for artists allowing for nude models. My art increased dramatically. My teacher noticed the difference.
The class found out later that I was "under age" but via a note from my parents, all was fine.
We put such a bizarre onus on nudity in our society it is frankly weird.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pictures?
No?
Then I don't think these are similar situations.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Every week...plenty of people willing to pose, plenty of people willing to take the class. Some woman or old dude would show up, take of their bathrobe and sit naked for an hour, changing poses every five or ten minutes. SHOCKING! There was no age limit for the students. SHOCKING! I guess as long as you sit still when you're naked, it's okay.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Did yours allow that sort of thing?
A list of 'rules' from a site about figure drawing:
1 Don't touch the model
2 Don't talk about the model's appearance
3 Teacher directs the session NOT the model
4 No talking
5 No flirting or acknowledgement of the attractiveness of the model.
Now, the party in question was like such a class in what way? They touched, the entire point was to enjoy the models appearance, dancer directs and conducts the session, the viewers talk freely to one another and to the performer, and not only do they flirt, they leer, make suggestive comments, grope, get groped...
Another difference would be that the dancers were 'of a type' that is a figure drawing class would as you say, offer up an 'old dude' not two women of similar age and type. Of course those boys and that mom would not get off on an old dude, and the entire point of the party was sexual excitement.
http://www.thenakedshed.blogspot.com/2006/05/rules-of-life-drawing-codes-of-conduct.html
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)dirty comic books. I seemed to get off on sex at a very very very early age, way before 11, fooling around myself.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"We put such a bizarre onus on nudity in our society it is frankly weird...."
From both directions, it often seems.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Here's what I can add, as an attorney and as a father of two, pre-pubescent girls. Legally, the question here centers around the right to rear one's children as one sees fit. That right, to rear one's children as one sees fit, has been established by the SCOTUS, and it is protected at strict scrutiny (one of the highest levels of protection offered by the SCOTUS). Said right does not appear in the Constitution. It was created by a judicial ruling, but the right to rear one's children as one sees fit was assumed under the English common law which all U.S. states (except Louisianna) use as the basis of their legal system. The SCOTUS merely codified a right that everyone, previously, assumed they already had. This is why it's O.K., generally, to employ corporal punishment when disciplining your children (so long as said beatings don't rise to the level of abuse--a very subjective standard, to be sure).
So, for me, the question here is whether the parents of all the attendees to this party knew that their children were going to be exposed to a stripper. Because the mother in question had every right to expose her own child to a stripper, I have no problem with that. I don't, personally, think that rises to the level of abuse, or deprivation, or any other standard that the state can use to punish a person for mis-treating their children. On the other had, the other parents of attendees at this party also have the right to rear their children as they see fit, and if the mother who hosted this party did not inform these other parents that a stripper would be present, then their right to rear their children as they see fit may have been infringed upon.
But is that a crime? That's another question altogether. I firmly believe that a parent who was not aware that their child would be exposed to a stripper would have a viable, civil action against this mother under these facts. However, I do not believe that this mother did anything that rises to the level of a crime (in which the state, with all of its inherent power, acts as a free attorney to punish a wrongdoer on behalf of an aggrieved party).
That, I think, is the discussion that the OP wanted to promote and it is the discussion I would prefer to have. As you have no doubt surmised, my preferences mean very little here.
Regards,
-Laelth
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)one sees fit. You presume that the mother has a right to expose her child to a "stripper." But that is not what happened here--The sex worker in question did not merely remove clothing, but engaged in contact. This was not accidental contact, either, it was contracted for because "strippers" do not commonly perform lap dances without payment to do so--it is a seperate service.
There is no common law right to procure sex workers for one's minor children. Nor is there a common law right to consent to sexual acts on behalf of one's children. Nor is there a common law right to consent to witnessing sex acts on behalf of one's children. It doesn't matter what she told the other parents. It doesn't matter what she consented to. It doesn't matter what the yound man 'consented' to.
She's charged under 260.10 of the NY Penal code. She's not going to be able to use the affirmative defense of consent, and frankly, she doesn't have much of a defense. She's going to have a tough time avoiding jail because no prosecutor is going to go easy on her unless the other parents agree. To avoid jail, she'd have to agree to serious monitoring, parenting classes, restitution, and possibly rehab. But I will tell you--I used to do Juvy defense. Cases like this, with a parent/child so close in age, and the sexual aspect of it, always gave me shivers.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am always sensitive to the abuse of criminal prosecution power by the state. Given that you are a criminal defense attorney, I would imagine that you feel similarly.
This should be a civil case, imho. If New York law makes this a clear and definite criminal case, so be it, but I don't like it. The power of the state should be used judiciously and sparingly. I have no interest in living in a police state.
-Laelth
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The prosecutor, like all prosecutors, is answerable to the public. Here you have 4 other wronged families who may not be content with leaving this as a civil matter. Justice should not bow to political pressure, but it does.
Arguably, jail time isn't going to teach this woman anything about parenting, and she probably doesn't have a dime to her name to make herself a truly attractive civil target. There's no good solution to this.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)DAs are, generally-speaking wanna-be politicians, and I suspect some DA thinks he or she can improve his or her chances of achieving political success through a rigorous prosecution of this woman who, while un-wise, is not inherently evil, nor is she really a danger to society.
I concede that you have accurately assessed the likely outcome, tragic though it may be.
-Laelth
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)It varies by state. Many parents that I know here in GA have served their children alcohol. Generally speaking, this activity goes unreported. That said, I am not aware of a single prosecution in this state over the past nine years involving a parent serving alcohol to his or her own children. The problem occurs (as it has in the case discussed in this OP) when one parent exposes a child that is not his or her own to an activity or substance that other parents may find objectionable. In cases like this, those parents who were not informed may (and probably should) have a viable civil cause of action against the parent who infringed upon their own, Constitutionally-protected right to rear their children as they see fit.
Whether this activity is (or should be) a crime is the point of the OP, I think. I am of the opinion that the mother referenced in the OP should not be held criminally liable in this case.
-Laelth
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Sounds pretty CREEPY and ILLEGAL that way, does it not?T
Upton
(9,709 posts)what heterosexual 16 year old kid wouldn't enjoy such a display? Personally, I think she's a great mom..Instead, she's facing a year in jail..
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)*sarcasm*
Upton
(9,709 posts)a woman's genitals up close is indeed a "dream come true"...
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is a 16-year old male fantasy?
Who knew?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have to wonder the man that assumes all boys want this also.
Upton
(9,709 posts)there are heterosexual teenage boys around who aren't aroused by the female form..
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I taught plenty of 16 year olds who would have thought this was the height of creepy....
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)insisting that ALL boys really want this and is challenging boys very sexuality if they show any desire to not experience this.
so they really set these boys up to have to keep their mouth shut and take it.
hence, the law
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)This whole thread has left me speechless.
Un-fucking-believable.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)This was in a party room at a bowling alley advertised as a "family fun center."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)all the years my hubby was single he was not into strip bars. thought they were insulting to men. didnt think about it much fromt he strippers perspective. it was all about him. he didnt go then. he would not applaud taking sons.
Upton
(9,709 posts)and if his mom payed for them..so what?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Upton
(9,709 posts)fine and understood, there are a lot of laws in this country trying to legislate morality, doesn't make them right....but where's the endangerment here?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)is that procuring sexual stimulation for someone below the age of consent is a kind of endangerment. Just like actually sexually stimulating someone below the age of consent is endangering them. They are not legally able to consent to this. Are you opposed to laws about the age of consent? Or do you think the age should be lower?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)start a petition to overcome this oppression.
If you truly do not understand why a parent who procures a sex worker to touch their minor child is endangering their child, I think there's nothing more I can educate you on.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Is it a dream come true for a 14 yr old girl to attend a party and find out that she will be forced (unless she calls her parents to come and collect her) to watch her slightly older peers getting lap dances with adult women wrapping their legs around the heads of these boys? Is it fun for her to be subjected to the comments and calls that typically accompany such displays?
Or do we not consider her feelings because the teen boy fantasy supersedes all other concern?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"what heterosexual 16 year old kid wouldn't enjoy such a display..."
What kid wouldn't enjoy playing X-box every day instead of going to school? Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and both equally idiotic from which to base a conclusion....
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)and a lactating stripper...
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)All I see is variations on "that's nasty", "its the LAW", "what if it was your DAUGHTER!!!", and this is the default position that I cannot justify and will not try because it is default so if you want to change default than you have to sell the benefit.
No digging in to the conventions, no logical framework, little actual thinking but emotional reaction and appeals to authority.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child is a crime. Having them do it in front of other minors is another crime. Taking pictures of said act? Another crime.
The 'endangerment' charges are placeholders, and easily proven. I suspect that she is facing more serious sex crimes charges.
Atman
(31,464 posts)WHAT IS THE CRIME?
So a 16 year old, already likely sexually active, but we don't know that -- my first time was on my 15th birthday -- has a naked woman dance in front of him. WHAT IS THE CRIME? The crime is that someone wrote down on a piece of paper that it is a crime. A 16 year old young man is not a CHILD. Who was harmed, and why is it in the benefit of society to prosecute someone, send someone to jail, because a naked woman danced in front of a 16 year? Who are we "protecting?"
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)•Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sex in their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and male teens have had intercourse.[1]
•On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17,[2,3] but they do not marry until their mid-20s.[4] This means that young adults may be at increased risk for unintended pregnancy and STIs for nearly a decade or longer.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html
you would be wrong about this, also.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I had sex for the first time on my 15th birthday. I was 19 when I met my 16 year old wife (just MET, didn't "do" anything!). She moved in with me when she was 18. We "lived in sin" for two years, then got married. We waited and planned our family, had two wonderful, successful boys (one just bought his first house in this horrible Obama economy, the other works at an ad agency in Boston). I helped put my wife through school, she earned her masters, I've owned a couple of businesses, and we've been married now for 31 years. I guess it's all because I hate women and I "don't get it."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not my problem. if you are gonna put this stuff out, expect it to be challenged if you are wrong.
Atman
(31,464 posts)And I suppose it is up to you to determine that?
I've been with my best friend for nearly 35 years. I have two successful kids. And you're going to tell me I don't know anything about life?
Of course not everyone has been as fortunate as I am. I never stated that. But that doesn't mean I don't have insight. Forgive me for not being as awesome as you are.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)puts the average age of first sexual intercourse at 17. something for both the girl and the boy.
it is not according to me.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)The crime is paying an adult to touch your minor child sexually.
The crime is doing all of that in the presence of other minors, many under the age of consent for ANYTHING,
The crime is recording all of this and making it available.
I am not against strippers. She can wait two years and take him to a club, where it'll be just be tacky and kinda icky to buy her kid a lapdance, but not a crime.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)It's not like there's some rule in NYS that says "you have to have some charges RIGHT AWAY or they get to walk!" - if the DA wanted to throw around some heavy-duty felony sex charges, there would be some press release to the effect of "we are currently investigating and will take action as we determine is warranted" or something. It's not like they're charging her with a custodial offense in order to hold her while they work on more charges - it's a misdemeanor, theoretically there's a year in jail since it's an A, but it's highly unlikely. I'm not quite as up on my NYS sex crimes, my jailhouse law tends more towards simple possession and public drunkenness, but the reports are saying "nearly nude" not "naked" and I do know the club laws prohibit nudity where alcohol is served which probably applies to for-hire dancers since homes aren't policed to be alcohol-free.
Anyway, assuming this dancer was wearing panties and pasties it is not a sex crime in New York. They're pretty clearly defined, the least severe one I can find is Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree which still requires "oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct" which didn't happen here; Disseminating Indecent Material to Minors is a computer crime.
Maybe you can take up the cause to get a "Bobby Viger's Law" passed in NY; exposing a teen boy to a nearly-naked woman is a Class A sex offense!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pasties? You can perform lap dances on minors in NYState?
You think that? Okay...you keep thinking that.
As for 'placeholders'--well, I've seen DA's file charges as placeholders, and then refile charges as the case gets more attention in the media. If I were her attorney, I'd advise her to be prepared to face more than misdemeanors.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)Again, if you don't like this, you're more than free to have it changed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)First, you failed to note the predicate:
1. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every
offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed
without consent of the victim.
2. Lack of consent results from:
(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching,
any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to
consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce
in the actor's conduct; or
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined
in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the
third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in
addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time
of the act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct,
the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in
such act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have
understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of
consent to such act under all the circumstances.
3. A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is:
(a) less than seventeen years old; or
(b) mentally disabled; or
(c) mentally incapacitated; or
(d) physically helpless; or
(e) committed to the care and custody or supervision of the state
department of corrections and community supervision or a hospital, as
such term is defined in subdivision two of section four hundred of the
correction law, and the actor is an employee who knows or reasonably
should know that such person is committed to the care and custody or
supervision of such department or hospital. For purposes of this
paragraph, "employee" means (i) an employee of the state department of
corrections and community supervision who, as part of his or her
employment, performs duties: (A) in a state correctional facility in
which the victim is confined at the time of the offense consisting of
providing custody, medical or mental health services, counseling
services, educational programs, vocational training, institutional
parole services or direct supervision to inmates; or
Second, you don't have a list of "all New York State Penal Law Sex Offenses." You have a list of those that require sex offender registration. There's a difference.
Third, I would charge the dancer with 130.52, and 130.60 (alternatively 130.55 if the facts in question bore it out.) Further, I'd charge the mother on 263.05 and 235.21(3) if I the facts bore it out, along with conspiracy counts where I could.
The thing about 'jailhouse' lawyers, my friend, is that they tend to be in jail.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)I'm well aware of the age of consent issue and I'm not challenging the facts at hand that the kids (more specifically the birthday boy) weren't legally capable of consent.
That being said, 103.60 instantly and clearly fails by its own words (all emphases added):
subjects another person to sexual contact and when such other person is:
1. Incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less
than seventeen years old; or
2. Less than fourteen years old.
.55 is an arguable case - unless the dancer is under 21! And if the DA wants to set precedent for lap dancing being "sexual contact"; I could see that spectacularly backfiring in one of the suits that pops up every year or so when a drunk guy runs up a huge tab at a strip club and then tries to weasel out...being intoxicated does usually = unable to consent..
subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent;
except that in any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative
defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent was due solely to
incapacity to consent by reason of being less than seventeen years old,
and (b) such other person was more than fourteen years old, and (c) the
defendant was less than five years older than such other person.
130.52 is a little more nebulous, requiring the touching to be "for the purpose of gratifying the actor's sexual desire"...I suppose you could ask the dancer (or a third-party dancer, as an "expert witness"
if she were sexually gratified by the dance. I've known a couple of girls who've danced and they never said it was exciting, but anecdotes doth not evidence make.
263.05 has wiggle room too and is probably your best shot; "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph or dance. Performance also means any other visual representation exhibited before an audience. Question becomes, were the other kids an "audience" as such? I can't find any strict definition of what an audience constitutes so you'd have to convince a jury of that one, it could go either way.
235.21 also falls flat on its own wording (unless mom was charging admission):
second degree when:
1. With knowledge of its character and content, he sells or loans to
a minor for monetary consideration:
(a) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film,
or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the
human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic
abuse and which is harmful to minors; or
(b) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced,
or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in paragraph (a)
hereof, or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative
accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse
and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors; or
2. Knowing the character and content of a motion picture, show or
other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual
conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he:
(a) Exhibits such motion picture, show or other presentation to a
minor for a monetary consideration; or
(b) Sells to a minor an admission ticket or pass to premises whereon
there is exhibited or to be exhibited such motion picture, show or other
presentation; or
(c) Admits a minor for a monetary consideration to premises whereon
there is exhibited or to be exhibited such motion picture show or other
presentation; or
3. Knowing the character and content of the communication which, in
whole or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or
sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he intentionally
uses any computer communication system allowing the input, output,
examination or transfer, of computer data or computer programs from one
computer to another, to initiate or engage in such communication with a
person who is a minor.
To be clear - this was incredibly stupid, irresponsible, and reckless of the mother and of the dancer once she got to the party, but I simply do not believe that any of this conduct was so harmful to boys between 14 and 16 years old (god knows when I was that age I had a stack of magazines and videotapes, if I knew a strip club that would have let me in you bet your ass I'd have been there in a heartbeat) that anything more than the already-levied charges are appropriate. It's not like they're going to have PTSD.
I suppose I should ask why you do feel that multiple felony sex charges should be brought, with the potential to quite literally destroy two people's lives, but I quite frankly don't know that I'd even want to hear reasoning that construes this as felony child abuse.
And I've never been in jail
ed taming subject line
ed 2 misread one statute, changing to reflect.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)First of all, 130.60 applies to the 13-year old at the party who apparently was involved in the show. Your statutory construction fails.
130.52 has conjunctive 'and's therefore, your stautory construction fails because you ignored (b) and (c) of the statute.
235.21.3 is the subsection involved, and using the non-conjunctive "or" there is no monetary consideration needed; therefore, your stautory construction fails.
I'm glad you agree with me on 265.05 and 130.55.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)The youngest I've heard is 14 from the CNN link and the only confirmed contact was with the 16-year old (the other "young male" was unidentified).
I caught myself on .55 (sexual abuse 3) and edited to update. But what are you talking about with 235.21.3? The text I'm getting from FindLaw is "3. Knowing the character and content of the communication which, in whole or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he intentionally uses any computer communication system allowing the input, output, examination or transfer, of computer data or computer programs from one computer to another, to initiate or engage in such communication with a person who is a minor." No monetary consideration no, but where was a "computer communication system" used to "initiate or engage in such communication", e.g. when were lewd materials sent over the internet? Facebook?
I don't agree on 263.05 and 130.52 (forcible touching), I just said I think those along with .55 if the dancers were old enough are the only cases that can even be made and 263.05 is an incredibly long shot that depends on simply having other people in the room qualify as a "perfomance."
Do you really believe that these boys were psychologically damaged so much that the most severe legal penalties that could possibly be applied should be applied? Should the court also order that all of them be placed into therapy? This seems like an appropriate response for a parent who hosts a party with alcohol and kids die in a DUI, but not for giving some kids what was quite honestly the time of their lives.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And yes...Facebook.
According to other reports, one child had his nipple bit, and was scratched. Yeah...I'm not saying she shoudl have the most severe penalties, but I think a felony count is warranted.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)So they should be charged?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)posted them, etc. If she did, she should be charged. If the minors did, no.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)That as (it's reported) that the parents became aware of thus via Facebook posts, it was likely the kids - I can't see the parents browsing a random dancer's page.
I don't even know that charges could be brought though; the communication wasn't directed at a specific minor but rather just posted publicly.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)In a reactive fashion. How about the DA actually talk to the kids and see how THEY all felt about it before taking action? I'm projecting myself into the situation which is not a rational thing to do; while the birthday boy seemed to enjoy it there could have very likely been some kids who were offended or profoundly uncomfortable.
I still question whether or not that would rise to the level of trauma that felony child sex crime charges should be a reaction to (realizing that the morality vs. applicability of the law isn't always a perfect match) - assuming the dancers weren't naked, the cold reality remains that the "performance" really wasn't anything worse than our hypersexualized culture has exposed even 13 year olds to already.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)year-olds?
http://poststar.com/news/local/teens-describe-lap-dances-at-birthday-party-in-stripper-case/article_2c7dbdd0-7ae1-11e2-90fe-0019bb2963f4.html
When the sex offense involves a minor, consent, or how the minor viewed the crime acted upon them is legally irrelevant, generally.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)While I was watching MTV Spring Break when I was 17. She thought it was rather distasteful and I was immature for watching it but she's turned out fine. I think they still broadcast that, you should get in touch with a DA in NY about it.
Bottom line, I'm comfortable with 5 counts of child endangerment. Maximum penalty of $5000 and five years in jail, I say 30 days and $2500 plus probation and maybe parenting classes. Or a firm smack upside the head.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)It's not a parent's job to sexually arouse their children. Nudity is not so much the issue, but a stripper's whole act is to sexually arouse and that's definitely bad parenting. Seeing boobies is bound to happen, and that's not so much endangerment, but it's the adult manipulating the situation as a provacateur. Plus, it is seriously ick.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Otherwise, half the people in spandex would be in jail.
edbermac
(16,449 posts)But this case was over the line. Did parents of the other kids give their consent?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)It's not about "nudity". It's about a less-than-healthy looking young woman exploiting nudity for money while you have a hard on in front of your mom.
Really gross. 
Atman
(31,464 posts)By those standards, I could think of half a dozen items on the Taco Bell menu as "criminal." The question remains, who was "harmed," and why is this a crime? Msanthrope will again say "because the law says it's a crime!" but that's not the point. Who is harmed by this? Honey Boo Boo should be a crime. I see HARM there. Who is "harmed" when a 16 year old gets a lap dance?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)as to the children. And it is a disturbing crossing of boundaries for mom.
I am not gay. I am happily married to a person of the opposite gender. I WOULD NOT have wanted to participate in this as a 15 year old. I also would not have wanted to deal with the peer-pressure and the taunts if I refused.
As an adult, my values are firmer, and the pull of the crowd less. That's because I'm an adult, not a child just beginning to negotiate my sexuality. That's why every state in the union recognizes a legal age of consent.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have one son that would be so pissed, he would make a spectacle of himself before walking out.
i have another that would sit their quietly and be totally uncomfortable and not say a word.
i hate that we give this to boys. it is as bad as a grown man convincing a girl to do something inappropriate because he is older and manipulates.
zaireeka
(31 posts)...who can recall that they were so sexually self-confident at the age of 14 or so that they wouldn't have been uncomfortable at all having a strange adult stick their genitals in their face while their friends and parents watched and took pictures.
I know for myself that I was pretty scared/confused/eager/terrified, etc. about my own sexuality when I was in middle school. I'll err on the side of caution that middle school age kids today are still scared/confused/eager/terrified, etc. and not hire sex workers for them.
I'm recalling an old Onion headline..."Neighborhood's Coolest Parent is Actually Neighborhood's Worst Parent".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thru than what the young girls are going thru.
sheeit, my 15 yr old googles, .... how to ask a girl out.
not quite on the same level.
but, yes, you are right, a lot of men pretend otherwise.
thanks for being candid about your own experience.
zaireeka
(31 posts)My goal in raising my sons is to NOT have them exposed to the notion that sex is a commodity to be acquired/purchased/traded/exploited...I will, of course, fail miserably when parents like these (and some posters here) are treated with a wink and a nod.
Thanks sb...and thanks to all the folks out there that made it OK for me to be a vulnerable, connected father. I feel sorry for the fathers out there (and mothers, surely) who don't get to enjoy that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is the best, in example.
so i guess we ought to be thanking you, for being that vulnerable connected father.
and welcome to du.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to their kid from a supposed other parent.
randome
(34,845 posts)After all, it's 'just' sex, right?
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Nine
(1,741 posts)There are laws in place designed to prevent, for example, your neighbor from showing your young child a pornographic video. Such an act would not, of course, "endanger" the child in the very narrow and irrelevant interpretation you seem to be focusing on; it would not be the equivalent of dangling the child over a cliff. But the charge is not "endangering the physical safety of a minor," it's "endangering the welfare of a minor." Welfare can include psychological well-being. I'm not a lawyer and someone might nitpick about my legal definitions but the point is that there should be a law against your neighbor showing your young child a porno, and there is a law against it. Can there be gray areas in that law like there are gray areas in any law? Sure. I wouldn't want to see a well-intentioned high school art teacher thrown into jail for showing the students a classical nude sculpture. I wouldn't want a parent arrested for taking a 14-year-old to see an R-rated movie with some violence and make-out scenes. There are gray areas, but this case isn't one of them in my opinion.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Two totally different things.
And having different rules for your daughter? What if she wanted to be scissored?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)They were investigating the level of contact.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And creepy as fuck.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)sometimes you have to wonder if some posters on here are truly progressives or just trolls that post to make DU look bad
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Really disturbing.
Atman
(31,464 posts)
I commented on a news story. Forgive me.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)The crime is paying an adult to touch your minor child sexually.
The crime is doing all of that in the presence of other minors, many under the age of consent for ANYTHING,
The crime is recording all of this and making it available.
I am not against strippers. She can wait two years and take him to a club, where it'll be just be tacky and kinda icky to buy her kid a lapdance, but not a crime.
This wasn't buying the kid a Playboy, or not caring that he watches porn online.
Smll_Ax3
(24 posts)but a lot of people are hung up on nudity..
I don't see the harm, as long as the other spectators were at least 16 or older....
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)There were boys and girls in attendance and some were at least as young as 14. And it wasn't simply an issue of exposure to nudity. Minors were receiving lap dances.
Atman
(31,464 posts)So I'll reiterate...my OP was based on a "breaking news" story on the tv. No link. No details. I explained this several times. I would NOT find this acceptable. But it still raises the question, what is a CRIME about seeing a naked woman? Yes, it is written on paper that it is a crime, I'm just asking why? You're not killing people, you're not a Wall Street Bank, you're not Dick Cheney...what is the CRIME here?
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)The CRIME, and i do not for a second believe you are truly as obtuse as you're pretending to be, is when the adult was paid to sexually TOUCH a minor. The CRIME is exposing other minors to that sexually charged activity. The CRIME is that these children were photographed being touched in a sexual manner.
This woman did not forewarn the children that they would be expected to either participate or observe these adult woman physically attempting to sexually stimulate teenaged boys. These children were social coerced, as CONSENT is, for very good reason, not required in situations involving child sex abuse.
You are doing yourself no favors by continuing this line of thinking. There are many here who will think twice before they ever interact with you again.
Atman
(31,464 posts)You obviously didn't read my previous posts. I do no support in any way shape or form that this mom did this. No way. You will not find a post of mine saying I approve of what the mom did. Not one.
My question was and is, why is it a CRIME to see a woman (or man) naked? That's all I ever asked...now there are over 200 posts on DU calling me an asshole, but not one answering the question.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)that anyone is being charged with the crime for seeing a woman or man naked or even allowing another to see a woman or man naked. That is what you are claiming throughout this thread. The mother wasn't charged with exposing her son to simple nudity. Nobody here, as far as i have read, suggested she should be charged with the crime of exposing her son to simple nudity.
You are suggesting something is happening when it clearly isn't happening. We're going to be left with one of two ideas about you...you are not capable of grasping the larger concepts OR you are playing some type of game to deflect from the very real concern of child sex abuse.
Smll_Ax3
(24 posts)14 years old's?, that's crazy.
I find it hard to believe how little sense some people have nowadays....
maybe it's always been like that, and we just didn't hear about all of it till now????
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)There is more to a child's wellbeing than just the physical. It is MORAL as well. I know that "moral" is a more objectionable word than "CUNT" to a lot of people, but like it or not, some semblance of moral code is what helps people grow into responsible adults.
And how do I know that many DUers implicitly value moral codes? How about this: remember the Duke rape case, where all those rich frat boys paid for a stripper(s) to entertain them? There was so much harumphing and posturing on DU about how shitty those kids were for having strippers in the first place that I thought this was Elizabethan Underground. Go back and look at the (hundreds of) threads - rich entitled frat boys exploiting women this, no respect for women that. And how old were those boys? Just a couple of years older than the 16-year-old for whom a stripper was hired.
Hiring strippers for a 16-year-old plants the seed that it is OK to objectify women. It informs the 16-year-old's little sister that women's bodies are available to their brothers as entertainment. It informs other children that it must be OK to exist in a sexually-charged environment if parents are willing to underwrite it. It teaches children that it is perfectly appropriate to sexually charge a communal celebration.
Go ahead - call me every name in the book. I'll keep on making sure young men in my sphere of influence don't learn to disrespect women, and young women in my sphere of influence don't feel like their genitals need to be for sale to young men.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Look at the context. This is a sad story. The mother got pregnant at 14. Their "moral code" was probably not what most of us would expect. She made a very stupid decision. I respect the rights of the other parents to hold her accountable. I'm still asking, what is the CRIME of a 16 year old young man seeing a woman naked? No one has answered that...and I might get banned from DU for just raising the question. Go figure.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"The incident took place inside a private room with paper covering the glass door. The strippers, wearing bras and panties, were photographed performing dances on party attendees, some of whom were as young as 15."
And there were 13/14 yr olds there too.
Apparently there was enough evidence to suggest a crime was committed. NO ONE but you said, ad nauseam, it is only about nudity.
ITS NOT!
bighart
(1,565 posts)numerous times in fact. It is against the LAW therefore it is a CRIME. This is really much bigger and about more than just the woman and her son, there were OTHER MINORS PRESENT.
Moosepoop
(2,075 posts)The mother is 33. The son is 16. Do the math. 33 - 16 = 17 years between them. Factor in the length of the pregnancy. She was not 14 when she became pregnant.
I harp on this because you are making her supposed age at conception a moral failing on the part of her and her parents (in an earlier post). Your premise on this (her age at the time) is wrong. So is your premise that teenage pregnancy is a moral failing on the part of a teen girl and/or her parents.
You defend her as a mother, yet condemn her and her parents for her teenage pregnancy which wasn't at the age you keep claiming it was, anyway.
She got pregnant as a teen. Get over it. I doubt that has anything to do with her idiocy at 33.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I defend her as mother but condemn her as a parent? How long did it take you think up that one?
Moosepoop
(2,075 posts)You have condemned her teenage pregnancy throughout this thread. Would you like me compile and post them?
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AndyA
(16,993 posts)Please! With the Internet, he's probably seen more in advertising than he saw at his birthday party.
Bad choice for the mother, but I don't see how they can say she endangered her son by doing so.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)This how they say so:
Fairly clear, that.
Billcorton
(11 posts)Very very bad parenting.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)...
“The defendant did enable and encourage the entertainers to perform a personal and intimate style dance to each of the juveniles, which was presented in a sexual manner,” wrote South Glens Falls Police Patrolman Phil Lindsey.
...
The five teens identified as victims in the case were 15 and 16 years old, but one partygoer told police teens as young as high school freshmen were present at the party.
...
One girl who received a lap dance, Carly L. Brown, 16, said the women performed for 10 to 15 minutes.
“Judy told me it was unexpected that the girls put their crotches in Reggie’s face,” Brown told police.
http://poststar.com/news/local/teens-describe-lap-dances-at-birthday-party-in-stripper-case/article_2c7dbdd0-7ae1-11e2-90fe-0019bb2963f4.html
Nine
(1,741 posts)I looked it up.
New York Penal - Article 260 - § 260.10 Endangering the Welfare of a Child
A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when... he or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old.
There's more, but I think this is the relevant part. I think exposing kids as young as 14 to a lewd act qualifies.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Who decided a 17 year old cannot see a naked woman, but a few months later it's okay?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Not sure how 'nudity' would compare with 'sexual contact'...things might have been different in this case otherwise.
"Police began investigating when photos were posted on social media websites. At first, officers were told the women were a “bikini gram” brought in to sing “Happy Birthday” to the teen. No charges were filed."
Nine
(1,741 posts)First, it wasn't just seeing a naked woman, as you have been informed repeatedly.
Second, the youngest minor was 14.
As the law is written, yes there is a cutoff age, just as with many, many laws. There is an age when you can drink alcohol, an age when a young person can consent to sexual relations, an age when you can vote, an age where a crime you commit is handled by the regular criminal justice system instead of juvenile justice. With every age cutoff, there exists a day where you fall into one category and the next day you fall into a different category. We have numerical cutoffs other than age. If you steal this amount, it's a misdemeanor, but a penny more and it's grand larceny. You can drive with your blood alcohol one level, but slightly over that and you are considered "impaired." Is this really the first time you've ever thought about that concept? We do have human beings to help fine tune the interpretation and enforcement of these laws, and I think most human beings would not have a problem saying what happened in this case fit the definition of endangering the mental well-being of at least some of those minors. Your insistence on talking about "a naked woman" is just a distraction.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Stop posting about this topic. In the process of defending yourself you have made comments that people consider offensive. Delete this thread. You may want to post in META and make an statement on what you really meant to say. Apologize where you need to and move on.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Eled and Skinner know me. If they want to make an example of me, so be it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)By the way I do not consider my being gay as a lifestyle. I do not know what you meant, but I just want you to know I do not consider it a lifestyle.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Being gay is NOT a "lifestyle." How many, many, many times do I have to say that? But I don't know how you can deny there is a certain "lifestyle" of gay, as PERCEIVED by people who are not gay.
Going back to my other post...a gay boss who was not shy about being gay, but never made a big deal about it. As opposed to my friend Stephen who is a drag queen, and calls himself Allysha, and it's all he's about. I'm not sure how else to describe it...you're making me out to be some sort of homophobe, when I'm saying exactly the opposite. If "lifestyle" is the wrong word, I apologize (again, I think the third time in this thread).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are getting the terminology wrong. Lifestyle is a way you choose to live your life. Your friend Stephen while gay is also Transgender. Transgender is an umbrella term for those who feel they were born with attributes of the opposite sex than they were born into. That is not a lifestyle, nor is being gay a lifestyle.
I think you have made a few mistakes in terminology and need to delete this post and go to Meta where you can start a new post and explain what you meant. Keeping this thread active will only give you more grief and the ability to make more mistakes. Just friendly advice. I understand you might not want to because you feel it is bailing out, but again you will only get grief from it. That is my 2 cents.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240225683
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240225627
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Yourself and dragging DU through the slime with this skanky snatch and gay lifestyle bullshit. Repulsive. Who gives a damn how long you've been here?
And by pretending looking at a naked person is the same as having them grind their crotch in your face? Pure bullshit.
It's all on you, buddy. Here's hoping the mods look at everything you posted here and do the right thing. It's obvious you can't.
look at how she is precariously perched.
If she had lost her balance she could have injured his neck. If she was wearing heels she could have injured his eyes.
If she had sharp body piercings she could have infected him.
I found it creepy that the boy's mother would do that.
shanti
(21,799 posts)you think that's ok?
Atman
(31,464 posts)But as a parent, no, it is totally inappropriate. (I feel like a parent..."TIME OUT!" in the corner). The mother is fucked up. If the kids arranged this party themselves, no one would bat an eye. The fact that the mom arranged it is the only real issue.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If the girl were 16 and did a nude dance for her boyfriend, we'd call it okay. But if she's 18, it's a sex crime? I don't see a victim here.
In parts of Europe nudity is no big deal. Boys see loads of topless women at the beach. Fuck, me and the boys back from high school used to get in to non-alcoholic strip clubs for a thrill and a peek. They're only boobs, they won't kill you.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)than a teen attending a birthday party and being exposed to their peers receiving lap dances.
The kids at the party were both male and female, they did not "seek out" the strippers themselves, and they were as young as 13 by some accounts.
This is not about nudity and this is not about teen exploration. These kids did not have a choice as to their readiness for this exposure.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)That leads me to believe they were neither traumatized nor offended by it - god knows I don't go putting things on my Facebook that upset me.
Here's a novel idea, even though the courts don't consider any of these kids capable of making their own decisions...how about the DA interview them, determine how they all felt and reacted, and then take appropriate action? I'm not defending what happened (though I know I would have loved it at 16, I had seen much worse by then) but I think that felony sex charges aren't necessarily warranted.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)but that does not make it either legal or good for her well being. These laws exist for a reason.
Children WANT and LOVE a ridiculous amount of things that are not actually in their best interest.
Certain men on this thread, who seem to think that the teen male sex fantasy model should be the foundation for any discussion regarding adult/minor sex abuse, appear to be deliberately ignoring the fact that this wasn't simply a party of 16 yr old boys. Young girls were present and some of the party goers were as young as 13.
Your assumption that posting images online is a defense against trauma or offense is very narrow. Recent news shows us that teens post a whole host of very dangerous, traumatic and hurtful things, largely due to peer pressure and often feel great regret over their participation.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)"Ain't the same ballpark - it ain't the same league - it ain't even the same f-in sport".
I'm not arguing that this was an entirely harmless act and I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be punishment for all the adults involved. What I am saying is that while it very possibly and likely made some of the kids in the room intensely uncomfortable, the incident was not abusive and certainly nothing like a 14 year old being raped by a 30 year old. Honestly, using that as a comparison is ridiculous, it trivializes the monstrosity of the latter.
Assuming the dancers were clothed, in terms of underwear and bras. At that point it's no worse than the Victoria's Secret show or MTV Spring Break, not things I think a 13 year old should be watching but also not things I think that felony sex charges would be an appropriate response to.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)child in this position to feel " intensely uncomfortable," uncomfortable? hence, the laws.
they do not have that right to do this to children.
you admit it in your post.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)I never said this was no big deal or that some kind of prosecution was unwarranted - I just think that felony child sexual abuse charges are a gross overreach and that five counts of endangering the welfare of a child with a midrange punishment are a perfectly appropriate application of the law.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)They do not wrap their legs around a watcher's head. You want to discuss "Ain't the same ballpark - it ain't the same league - it ain't even the same f-in sport"? Adults performing lap dances on boys is not the same a boy watching a Victoria's Secret special.
Did you just say that children being exposed to, due to an adult's maneuverings, in-person physical sexual activity, performed by adults on minors, which possibly made them "intensely uncomfortable" doesn't constitute abuse?
It is precisely that. Abusive.
You suggested, in your previous post, that a 16 yr old being physically aroused by an adult woman is NOT abuse because the boy is consenting. For comparison, I pointed out a counter scenario where a teen girl is consenting to sexual contact with her adult boyfriend. THIS you call rape. Why? Because of the ages involved? How old were the strippers who likely sexually aroused the teen boys? Perhaps 27 like the boyfriend in my scenario?
In both cases you have physical sexual activity being performed with a minor. This is abuse. Consent is irrelevant.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)though girls are more mature that boys at a younger age, the girl cannot handle sexuality and the boy is all that sexually....
or so we are told.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)If the roles were reversed, 16 year old girl in a single encounter with a nonnude dancer, and 14 year old boy in a sexual relationship with a 27 year old woman, I would still consider the former endangerment/corruption and the latter major abuse. I realize that the law considers a lap dance to be functionally identical to intercourse, and I recognize the prosecutorial benefit of having that as an option, but I also think that demanding they always be considered equivalent is...less than critical thinking.
Same goes for abuse. It's a very real and very serious issue and I have venom for child molesters the likes of which offends people here, but I don't necessarily take a blanket view on it. The first case, young-old sex, is obviously an adult coercing, manipulating or outright forcing an immature child into a psychologically sexually and physically harmful situation for their own gratification and should be prosecuted accordingly - buying a teen a lap dance is neither manipulative nor more importantly psychosexually harmful. I'm not saying it's harmless, at the very least you're teaching a bad lesson about women as objects - but "arousing a teenage boy" is neither difficult, uncommon or devastating. As to the other children in the room, endangerment is the standard charge in NY for having a child witness an act of domestic abuse so the parallel is obvious - I would support adding a charge for each child present and allowing civil action as well. I don't, however, see justice being better served for anybody by charging these idiots with sex felonies.
On that note I'm done for the day; work is getting quite busy and I have, ah, plans for later.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)As any attorney will tell you.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)Cut and paste on my phone is being wonky so I can't provide the list but over half the states have an AOC of 16 - if mom had held the party in PA, the dancer could have taken the kid in back and made a Real Man out of him perfectly legally.
Anyway, the letter of the law vs. its intentions don't always coincide...the evidence here is pretty clear cut, I think if the DA wanted to go for high-buck sexual abuse charges s/he already would have.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Some of the reports claim a 15 yr old received a lap dance.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)From what I've seen of kids today, at least. The internet made our virginal mysteries seem like a bygone era.
If it were my son getting a lapdance or whatever, would I care? Probably not. It would relieve me if good old fashioned strippers were his outlet, rather than say someone peeing on someone else. 
Seeing a naked woman when I was a kid was really something, eye opening stuff. It involved a lot of work and sneaking around. Nowadays there are thousands of naked woman just a few clicks away.
The general reaction is all a bit Puritan for my tastes. The mother was in the wrong, but really what harm was done? I could never pretend to be outraged at something like this, not in an era where everyone surfs for porn but pretends to be scandalized by a nude dance. Half the parents outraged probably have young teenagers surfing porn on their laptops.
That's my feelings on it anyway.
zaireeka
(31 posts)...how about, at least, the continued presentation of female sexuality as some sort of male hegemony for teenage boys? How about the teenage girls that attend school with these kids who will now feel the pressure from boys to behave that way? How about the parents who have to explain that what their children are seeing is not a normal, healthy, loving expression of sexuality, but a gross caricature designed to silence women's TRUE sexuality?
Teenagers get enough fucked up ideas about sex "surfing porn on their laptops". I think it is HARMFUL for those fucked up ideas to be validated by the people in their life who should know better. If that makes me a Puritan, than I shall not tarry and quench thy thirst with another glass of lemonade, dear sir.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)I've noticed those who take the stance of "boys will be boys" tend to have a viscerally different reaction if the subject of the sexual encounter, with an adult, is a young girl. You are aware that there were young girls and boys as young as 13 who had to accept what was happening because one woman decided they should be exposed to it? There wasn't any consideration as to the possible discomfort these kids may experience. I have now raised three children past the age of 13. I can assure you that all kids would NOT handle this exposure in the same way. One of my kids would be SEVERELY traumatized by the feeling of helplessness she would feel being dropped off to a place where this was happening. I suspect my other two kids would allow the experience to "roll off" more easily. ALL KIDS ARE NOT THE SAME.
And if these young kids, girls included, were not emotionally or psychologically prepared to deal with this exposure to adult woman pressing their crotch into a peers face, "fuck em". At least that seems to be the extent of the concern of many here and certainly that of the mother.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)In this state, OH, it would be corruption of a minor. Perhaps he is in danger of corruption.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I will run from this bowling alley and download porn instead!
Yeah. Right.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)What's your point beyond making an ass of yourself?
And as you well know, a stripped is not simply nudity, it is specifically designed to be sexually arousing. Society is right to protect children (I know, 16, but one has to draw a line somewhere) from sexual exploitation by adults. Do you think it is all right for a 16-yr.-old to BE a stripper for hire? If not, why is it okay to be the audience at that age?
Are you ignoring your bowling friends and paying attention to your gadget instead? Seems rude.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)The strippers reportedly weren't even naked.
Is it that you think your 14/15yr old daughter would get a kick out of having a hunk's junk in her face? The hunk touching her and climbing on her? Or maybe watching her friends treated the same way?
Or that you would not mind some other parent making that decision for her & them?
You are such a great dad!
"WEEEEEEEE skanky cock and balls on my face!"
"Who needs to downoad porn - I have my friend's party - her Mom is soo kewl!
Atman
(31,464 posts)THE MOTHER IS AN IDIOT. How many times do I have to post that?
But she is being charged with ENDANGERMENT. How did she ENDANGER her 16 year old some by seeing a naked woman? Can someone, anyone, after hundreds of posts in two DU forums, explain to me how her son was ENDANGERED?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)There was apparently NO NUDITY. Bras and panties.
It was sexual contact of juveniles. Contrary to law. Law enacted by We the people.
Unlawful acts contracted for and promoted by the defendant. In a private closed off room.
She was (also) charged on behalf of OTHER KIDS and their parents who obviously did not approve of their juveniles being involved with this Mom's notion of innocent fun.
Glad you would have approved if they were your kids. Glad you aren't around mine.
"Idiot" - the word I was thinking too, along with 'dumbass'. Starting to think 'sick fuck' might be approriate too.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Granted, it's crude and tasteless, and teaches the wrong lessons to a boy who should be learning to approach that sex thing with respect towards sexual partners, but he was in no physical danger.
The worst she did to him was cause him to pitch a tent in his pants.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)2) is contrary to a law saying such behavior by adults is not acceptable.
And 3) there is more to endangerment then physical damge.
A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when:
1. He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the
physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years
old
Yep - that's the one.
Response to jmg257 (Reply #296)
Post removed
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Sexual contact? lap dances? 13-16yr olds present? Signed compliants.
"but we have to stop 16 year olds from seeing pussy!"
They weren't even naked.
Wrong, yet again. It wasn't about "pussy" or "skanky snatch", was it?
"The defendant did enable and encourage the entertainers to perform a personal and intimate style dance to each of the juveniles, which was presented in a sexual manner,” wrote South Glens Falls Police Patrolman Phil Lindsey."
"The charges stem from an allegation that she endangered not only the welfare of her own child, but the welfare of the 14- and 15-year-old children that were at the birthday party as well,” Murphy said"
"Police began investigating when photos were posted on social media websites. At first, officers were told the women were a “bikini gram” brought in to sing “Happy Birthday” to the teen. No charges were filed."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But no matter how many vulgarisms you use for female body parts, the 16 year old kid did not see any of those parts, as these exotic dancers were bikini clad. No 'boobies' were shown, but you insist that is happened, and that it is just the seeing of said 'boobies' that is in contention here.
You are saying a situation that involved no nudity is all about nudity. Aside from the rest of your blather, that basic fact makes you look like an obtuse fool. The dancers were not nude, not even topless. You keep insisting they were, but they were not.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)skewed notion of good clean fun interferes with our ideas of how/what we want our juvenile kids to be raised, entertained, touched, exposed too, etc..
So we pass laws such as:
He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the
physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years
old
This is in hopes that our kids will not be subject to such illegal behavior. And that idiots with notions like that Mom's and yours will be deterred.
Yet those kids were exposed to sexual contact in spite of the laws to the contrary. THAT is how they were endangered. Get it now?
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)I don't think the birthday boy felt he was in much danger.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)kids being endangered? And why the police who investigated decided to press charges?
Maybe they can explain it to you.
And why there are such laws enacted in the 1st place. Likely because generally normal people don't like our kids being subject to such acts.
I do know if my 14yr old daughter was treated in this manner, I would be looking to sign complaints too.
I do know I once arrested an older man who couldn't keep his hands from making sexual contact w/by touching a 15yr old babysitter.
You don't think she was endangered in some manner?
1. He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the
physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years
old"
Yep - she was....and not physically.
Nine
(1,741 posts)You don't know how any of those kids felt, much less all of them. And their immediate feelings are not the issue anyway. You might as well say it's ok for an adult to have sex with an underage minor as long as the minor seemed to not mind it.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)One doesn't have to be at risk of losing life and limb to be "endangered"
She set the kid up to be a victim of a crime. If you are a victim of a crime you have been "endangered"
She aided and abetted a crime and is probably subject to additional charges based on aiding and abetting (or however the statute is phrased) prostitution.
There is a whole slew of crimes she can be charged with. She will be lucky if endangerment is all she ends up with. I'm no lawyer but she could probably be charged with "pandering" or "pimping" if the prosecutor wants to throw the book at her.
onenote
(46,142 posts)Age of consent in NY is 17. Sexual contact includes contact through clothes, so the lap dance would qualify. While there are exceptions, under the statute as written, they wouldn't apply if the dancer/stripper was over the age of 21 (i.e., more than five years older than the minor).
sir pball
(5,340 posts)As do I think the people arguing for multiple felony child sex charges are being overreactive.
The punishment as it stands now is entirely appropriate. It was monumentally piss-poor judgement and complete parental irresponsibility and should be treated as such.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)onenote
(46,142 posts)would that display endanger the girl? Would it endanger the boy?
This may help folks understand why the events at issue were deemed to warrant an arrest. The age of consent in New York is 17. The boys at this party were under that age. In New York, "sexual contact"is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. Moreover, it includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing." Sexual contact, as thus defined, is considered to be sexual abuse in the third degree when a person subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter`s consent. There is an exception where the person on the receiving end of the contact is under the age of consent so long as the other person involved was more than fourteen AND the defendant was less than five years older than the minor. So, unless it can be proven that the female in the picture was under 21 years old, what she was doing could be considered a crime in New York.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
?w=590&h=590backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Crude? Yes. Misogynistic? Yes. Were the minors involved in any physical or psychological danger? NO. Judging by my appraisal of the mentality of most horny teenage guys, they were probably enjoying themselves.
Should the mother be prosecuted for committing a crime? NO.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,960 posts)When local teachers were molesting boys; even the comedians said that was a privilege; never mind that this warped the kid's development, and that he might very well have a lifetime of messy, nasty relationships with women if this was their starting off point.
Oh, and to the one's who said being Gay is just a lifestyle...go to hell. This sort of "make a man" out of the boy, BS is something Gay kids often get subjected to because they think the hooker/stripper can "CURE" they gay tendencies of the boy, which again, will make for a lfetime of bad relationships with women.
And I happen to admire strippers, they do a job, and do it well, but frankly, even the dumbest of all genders can understand "under 18 can get you 20."
Orrex
(67,111 posts)She's just trying to make ends meet, for pity's sake.
If that means breaking a few laws and potentially distorting young boys' concepts of sexuality and female identity, then what's the harm, really?
[font color=white]As a matter of practice I do not use the sarcasm smiley.[/font]
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)It is how muddled and terrified our society is when it comes to anything involving sex.
Edit because I am not getting into this train wreck of a thread
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)The crime was that the mother hired a sex worker. That sex worker performed acts on minors. Those acts were photographed. Those minors at the party were as young as 13, both male and female. The parents of the minors were told this would be a birthday bowling party. Nothing about a stripping sex worker who would prefer lap dances and face dances. And of course, teens always have their phones with cameras. The evidence is clear and already on Facebook. The parents are pissed.
What my sons saw was one thing. What they did with girlfriends we made damned sure they were prepared for. I don't know any parent who could possibly have imagined having to prepare a 13-year-old boy for how to respond when the parent of his friend has such a party and then a sex worker suddenly wraps her legs around his head in full view of everyone at the party. While everyone cheers on. What does he do? What if he feels smothered? What if he hates it? What if he's embarrassed? No matter HOW he feels he has to act like it's wonderful. What if he's gay? That's the beginning of hiding who he is, when maybe he never planned to hide at all. Just maybe he had planned on being who he is from the first dance at school. But this took him by surprise in a group that wasn't his usual group. Now do you understand?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)"If this THREAD illustrates anything it is how muddled and terrified our society is when it comes to anything involving sex."
Note the bolded word.
You want me to share your outrage. I prefer to concern myself with things like wealth and income inequality, poverty, social injustice, clean air and water, our environment and global warming, our government completely out of control, the Patriot act and drones and endless wars, hungry kids... things like that.
I leave issues like worrying about teen boys being exposure to live breasts to the fine folks at Westboro Babtist -- or to the christian moral authorities here on DU.
But since you ask some specific question I will answer them:
"What does he do? What if he feels smothered?"
What if mom took them all to an amusement park and he got scared on a coaster?! Holy hell!
What if he hates it?
Then he learns that he doesn't like strippers.
What if he's embarrassed?
Then he's embarrassed. What's the point?
What if he's gay?
Then he laughs about it with his friends who know he is gay.
See, the thing here is that you are assigning your moral standards -- standards that clearly incorporate a shame based view of sexuality -- to the kids at this party. You ask these questions based upon the assumptions that these negative reactions are not only possible, but likely and proper. Whatever. The mom here is an idiot, and the kids, despite the "horrors" they went through at this party, saw nothing they have not seen a thousand times before. They are more likely to be scarred by the ludicrous overreaction by moral authorities than they are by the incident itself.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
PufPuf23
(9,852 posts)when 15 or 16 of age. I attended a then quite liberal coeducational boarding school near San Francisco in the 2nd and 3rd year of its existence 68-70.
Stops included Cafe Trieste (opera and capacino), City Lights Bookstore (where Ferlinghetti read us poetry), the Condor Club (where Carol Doda talked to us and gave us a glimpse of her show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Doda), Finnochio's (http://queermusicheritage.us/oct2002f.html), Anton Levay's Church of Satan store (Antron present to talk to us), Coit Tower, Enrico's Club, a Cathederal (that the name slips my memory), and dinner at the Old Spaghetti Factory. We were at The Condor and Finnochio's early in the day when they were not open for business and got private visits and shows.
I only went to two other nudie bars in my life, both when I was 19 on my epic backpack, thumb, and Greyhound from California to Florida to to DC to New York to Seattle and points between then home: I went to a nudie bar in New Orleans during Mardi Gras and one in Nashville when I went to the pre-Opreyland Grand Old Opera. Never again and I am in my 60s now.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...or some other cocktail with someone, possibly her son.
Isn't there a word for this kind of "relationship"?
I call it abusive, easily.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)spreading her legs lasciviously, then I would think it's something we should discourage and at least levy a fine, although I can remember back in the 60s looking at playboy magazine that classmates used to sneak into school when I was 13 and it wasn't a big deal.
Just seeing a naked body is no big deal either. When my dad was stationed in Germany when I was 6 years old, he used to take us for vacation in the south of France where they had nudist colonies that bordered right up to the public beach, separated only by a wire fence. Children and adults of all ages were there, both naked on the naked side and clothed on the clothed side, able to see everything and no one made anything out of it.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)I'd say this, mother procures sex worker--ok, bad parenting decision. Other people's kids are there- we're in the world of total dumdass now.
I don't know the law, my guess is that its probably what they had to charge her with.
I could see endangerment if the kid took his birthday money and slipped away for unprotected six with a unknown sex worker. The world of a sex worker can often be violent and connected to crime, the kids were peripherally exposed to that world. That's endangerment as well.
pepperbear
(5,693 posts) Response to Atman (Original post)
time 4 me to fly Message auto-removed
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)Some could handle it, some could not. For all we know this woman was trying to "fix" her gay son... that would cause some harm. I know this for a fact because it happened to a friend of mine.
As I said, every child is different. What is harmful for one 16-year-old may not be harmful for another. That's why there are age limit laws for titty bars.
There's not enough information here to form a real opinion... but clearly that hasn't stopped many here. Joy.