I get why people are uncomfortable with acknowledging teen girl sexuality, too: the fact is that young women are often targeted for sexual assault, have fewer means to defend themselves from it because they know less about the world than adults, and are correspondingly fetishized by way too many creepy, misogynistic men. But to make the whole thing about whether teen girls should be allowed to be sexual, or whether they are Bad Girls for being sexual in ways we do not approve, places the onus on teenage girls and their sexuality. Rather than, say, predatory dudes. And that’s a problem.
It shouldn’t be a problem to assert these two things, simultaneously: first, that teenage girls are sexual, and want to express and experiment with their sexuality, and second, that their desire to express and experiment with their sexuality shouldn’t be exploited by predators. But it is, for some reason, and the end result is that we end up with role models as asexual and one-dimensional as Taylor Swift. Because a girl can’t be sexual and innocent, for whatever reason. Because we’ve constructed a worldview wherein desire and innocence can’t occupy the same space.
[A new case is] asking Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice to invalidate Criminal Code provisions that serve as Canada’s policy response to the world’s oldest profession.
They argue that prohibitions on keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade force them from the safety of their homes to the insecurity of the street, where they are exposed to physical and psychological violence.
But the women are battling a fortress of opposition from the federal government, as well as religious and conservative groups intervening in the case.
The intervenors contend that loosening restrictions on the sex trade would be out of step with Canadian moral values.
No one has ever succeeded in eliminating prostitution by criminalizing it, so can’t we just think about what’s best for sex workers? How is it moral to uphold laws that make sex work more unsafe for women than it needs to be?
An article by Leigh Goldstein in Jumpcut argues that the legal and media commentary about sexting denies youth the capacity to be subjects:
By criminalizing self-produced child pornography, our government has effectively censored minors’ right to record their sexualities or erotic identities. … Having shushed the kids, we adults gleefully expound on what they must feel: duped, misguided, ultimately regretful of having exposed and/or exploited their bodies. Exploited object? Of course, it’s the part kids were born to play. But the role of subject when it comes to discourses of desire? That remains off limits.
Goldstein also raises interesting questions that I am trying to grapple with in the chapter I am currently working on:
If ample research, especially that coming out of girls’ studies, has already documented the silencing of adolescent sexuality, why do legal and media discourses continue to participate in this silencing? And what are the possibilities for bringing together these different forms of discourse so that they better inform each other?
We’ve been hearing warnings from feminist researchers for decades that the “missing discourse of desire” in sex education for girls could lead them to have trouble saying “no” as well as saying “yes” to sex. Why haven’t I seen any feminist articles heralding sexting as: “finally, look at this, a new way that girls are expressing themselves sexually!”?
From a law review by Stephen Smith (2008, Jail for Juvenile Child Pornographers? A Reply to Professor Leary, 15 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & Law) concluding that prosecutors should only pursue charges against teens for consensual sexting if it aids catching adult sexual offenders:
We need not celebrate what some might describe as the “sexual liberation” of teenagers. If we really want to help children (and we should), we should not pursue prosecution-based strategies that are likely to do minors more harm than good. We should instead concentrate our efforts, as a society, on dealing with the many sexual predators and other dangerous criminals in our midst – and, so far as the criminal law is concerned, leave the Romeos and Juliets of the world alone, even if their love happens to be memorialized in forms less appealing than iambic pentameter.
What does it mean to be against the sexual liberation of teenagers but for leaving Romeo and Juliet alone?
An Arizona couple is suing Walmart after a film developer reported their bath-time photos to authorities. From ABC:
For A.J. and Lisa Demaree, the photos they snapped of their young daughters were innocent and sweet.
But after a photo developer at Walmart thought otherwise, the Demarees found themselves in a yearlong battle to prove they were not child pornographers. …
The Peoria, Ariz., couple had their home searched by police and worse, their children — then ages 18 months, 4 and 5 — were taken from them for more than month. Their names were placed on a sex offender registry for a time, and Lisa Demaree was suspended from her school job for a year. The couple said they have spent $75,000 on legal bills. …
“These photos were never intended for anyone to see except for family members,” Treon said. “Perversion is in the eye of the viewer.”
Eventually, a judge threw out charges against the Demarees, but now they’re going on the legal offensive by suing the state, the city and Walmart for their role in what they call a “nightmare.”
Reading through a new law review (.doc in draft) on sexting, I came across this:
Under federal law, moreover, any person who “produces” sexually explicit images, including “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” is required to maintain certain detailed records and to keep his or her home available for FBI inspections.
Indeed, the relevant part of the US Code does make it clear that one must keep meticulous records of the performers in any sexually explicit images or videos that one creates, since that producer must:
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
So far, I am unaware of any sexting charges that have used this part of the law. But couldn’t young adults who take sexually explicit photos or videos of themselves, even if they are 18 and over, be prosecuted under this law if they don’t keep a photocopy of their partner’s birth certificate?
2. Pandering
The article also explains that a prohibition on offering or requesting child pornography was also recently found to be constitutional:
The Williams case held that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment,” thus upholding 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) (punishing anyone who “advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits” child pornography). So under Williams, a text message that says “Hey! Check my hot nude pics on Facebook! C U L8er” could put a teen in prison for 5 to 20 years.
In short, there is a separate law for discussing the exchange of child pornography, even between teens. It is illegal for a teenager to ask another teenager (even politely, without harassing him or her) for sexually explicit photos.
Since 95% of people do have non-marital sex, and research consistently demonstrates that abstinence programs are “ineffective, unethical, and poor public health,” why promote such an impossible and counter-productive goal? Are these PSA’s just a politically viable facade for a hidden comprehensive sex education agenda?
Not quite. Though the campaign promotes abstinence until marriage, it does have some information for those 95% of people who won’t get there. Under the section “Dealing with Risky Behaviors and Other Challenges” the birth control information chart cites only the “typical use” failure rate (15% for condoms) and not the “consistent and correct use” failure rate (2%). Why not launch a PSA campaign to make “typical” use more “correct and consistent”? And really, why bother with this section at all–how many teens would ask for help getting condoms or birth control after a parent makes it clear that the only thing they approve of is “waiting”?
The site devotes a few sentences to parents of queer kids (or, um kids who might be, err, “experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation“), who should keep in mind, “Accepting your son or daughter can help lead to strong, life-affirming relationships in the future.” But the rest of the campaign makes it pretty clear that gay kids, who can’t ever get married, will never be successful or happy.
New article in Girlhood Studies by Shayla Thiel-Stern. I can’t wait to get the inter-library loan copy of this, it sounds great:
This article raises issues related to the gendered representation in the print media, particularly English-language newspapers, of girls who use MySpace as foolish innocents who invite sexual predation. It examines the ways in which the stereotyped representation of girls and boys promotes the hegemonic discourses that construct girlhood as a time of helplessness and lack of control, and that blame the technology itself, in this case MySpace, for a multitude of cultural problems. Ultimately, these discourses portray MySpace as a dangerous place where adolescent girls flaunt sexuality, where sexual predators lurk, and where boys commit violence, thus creating and reinforcing a moral panic and extending stereotypes about girls and boys, and about technology.
After so many panicked empirical studies of girls’ risks online, I’m glad that I’m finally starting to see more scholarship on the discourses about the internet, myspace, and sexual predators.
Only juveniles who have no prior record, were unaware their actions constituted a criminal offense and are likely to be deterred from future offenses by completing the program would be eligible.
To choose an education program over a child pornography prosecution, teens must apparently prove ignorance of the law and convince someone that education would set them straight. This sounds like the criminal justice opt-out program that already exists: kids who have expensive legal representation (and/or class/race credibility) can prove they are “good” and reformable to avoid incarceration.
This bill unfortunately fails to address the fact that it is still legal (in most states) for two 17-year-olds to have sex, but illegal for them to photograph it. Until this legal tension is resolved, I think we’ll continue to see such unfair legal band-aids as this one.
ELK GROVE, CA, CBS News–A class of fifth graders in California got a shocking crash course on the birds and the bees courtesy of their teacher and an x-rated home video she accidently included in a DVD of classroom memories.
Though I think criminal charges for the teacher would be totally inappropriate, I’m surprised they’re not being filed (yet?).
The substitute teacher a few years back who exposed a class to porn pop-ups accidently was treated far more harshly, as are teen girls whose sexually explicit pictures have been sent out to classmates without their permission.
I wonder what the difference is here that makes this teacher seemingly immune to prosecution?
CBS 13 reports that the local school district is investigating the case, but that it is unlikely that teacher, who is well-liked and respected, will lose her job.
This is a place for my CV and some links related to my current project on the moral panic about adolescent girls, sexuality, and new communications technologies.
