A local story near my city involves a 16-year old boy who received a nude picture from a 14 year old girl. The article says the boy loaded the picture to the internet and distributed it across the nation. When the police raided his house, they also found a large amount of child pornography. The boy is on probation (computers, cell phones, etc) until he is 19 years old. At the end of the article it suggests that the girl might be charged too.
So here's my question: By charging the girl, is this a case of blaming the victim? I feel like the girl has already had enough damage done to her by the boy spreading around the picture of her. So why should she be charged? Yes, she was only 14 years old but the picture was supposed to be private.
Thoughts, anyone?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sexting- What do you think about it?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14627
Are you asking because she is a girl? Would you be asking the question if it were a boy who had sent the photo?
Let's assume that the answer is 'yes'.
First, is she really a victim? She contributed to the offence, after all. Without her photo, no offence could have been committed.
The fact that he subsequently caused her embarrassment does not get her off the hook.
Which leads me to the hook.
Is sending photos of underage girls (or boys) an offence? Yes, I guess. Is the fact that she chose to send a picture of herself a defence? No, I guess. And it should not be - if it were, then prostitution would be legal everywhere.
Also, the expectation that it would be private is not relevant either; all sex offenders believe that and it has never been seriously accepted as a defence by anyone, has it?!
So, I'd say that, no, she is not a victim. And charging her does not offend me.
I agree with you 100%. If you're that worried about people seeing you naked, reconsider sending naked pictures of yourself into cyberspace, especially to teenage boys. Is this rocket science? It scares me that this seems to be so hard for some people to figure out. Once you send out a picture, IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU ANYMORE. Someone else can always get it, even if only by accident.
Child Pornography is treated as an extremely heinous crime because it typically is created by an individual exploiting the child. With the advent of sexting, this line has become blurred. There has recently been a hotly debated court case about a similar situation.
First, did the 14 year old exploit the 16 year old in sending the picture? Simply because of the age difference, I very much doubt it.
Did the 16 year old exploit the 14 year old by placing the image online? As the 14 year old did not agree with it, then the answer is definitely yes.
So to answer your question: yes, I feel that the 14 year old is a victim for the same reason you stated, the picture was to remain private. To charge the 14 year old would in fact be victim blaming.
These situations do make obvious the need to help current kids and teens realize the benefits of limited web presence (example- not taking/sending nude pix of yourself), and their responsibility with information they can access (example- don't publicly post nude pix sent to you in privacy).
I'd say that things like this go beyond blaming the victim. There's a real and disturbing dissonance here because officially, there is no victim. If the girl could be charged for a crime how could she be a victim? Who are we protecting by tarring both of these kids as sex offenders? We're not protecting anyone, we're making scary examples, and teens aren't known for paying heed to scary examples.
There is a victim, and it was the girl. She should not be charged. She made a choice that some may judge as foolish (but keep in mind that she is 14, that I have seen "sexting" treated as every day normal behavior on the cosmogirl teen website, that Vanessa Hudgens and other stars that teens view as role models have head their own naked pic scandals, etc) To blame her is not only blaming the victim but also a form of slut shaming. Should her parents be concerned about her behavior? Maybe. But they are the only ones.
For me it isn't about 'slut shaming' it's about stupidity shaming. Really, she gets a pass for being stupid because she's only a 14 yr old girl, yet the 16 yr old kid who is her boyfriend is expected to be all honorable and mature in respecting her privacy? There is not much difference in the maturity levels of these two, so why is he expected to not be foolish but it's okay for her to be? He's young and dumb,too.
Let's see, what's the difference between trusting someone who wasn't trustworthy because you were dumb and inexperienced and had poor impulse control, and passing around naked photos of someone without their permission because you were dumb and inexperienced and had poor impulse control?
Oh yeah, one is malicious behavior.
I don't see what's so freaking hard about this.
exactly. the concept of consent here is crucial-she consented to him seeing it, not everyone else.
I think that this is one of those cases where the legal system hasn't caught up with technology yet. They are trying to make this fit into a pre-existing crime definition and if just isn't working.
People often do things that aren't very smart and young people do them a lot. This girl took picture of herself (no so smart but not a crime)she then sent them to another person (really not smart and maybe this is where an authority figure should get involved) and then the other person posted the pictures online (really really no so smart and really jerkish too).
Girl is going to have to live with that and Boy should have some serious school/home punishments but not a criminal record. Both should get some sit-down time with a therapist and should have to talk and maybe make a presentation about the issue of personal privacy.
I am not saying that the girl is to blame but sometimes bad situations aren't about "who is to blame?" as much as "what did I learn?".
I realize I am looking at this black and white, but I'm okay with that. Personally, I wouldn't care if the person sending the nude photo was a girl or a boy, or if the person they sent it to was male or female. I would still take the side of the child who sent the photo. The person is underage and should be protected, by law, and the person who distributed it should be convicted. The 14 year old girl was foolish, but she's underage and should be protected by the law. Prosecuting her (or if it were a boy, him) isn't productive. No one should be distributing nude photos of a child, period. No matter what the circumstances.
That being said, I'm not sure how in different circumstances how the distributor should be punished if they are underage as well. However, in this case the boy had a collection of child pornography and I think he does deserve the punishment he got.
Should people be receiving nude photos of children that we don't even know they want? If some yucky guy started sending me unsolicited naked pictures of himself most people would feel that qualifies as harrassment. I can't help what someone sends me. She made him a criminal just by sending it to him and putting it in his possession, even if he had never distributed it. What gave HER the right to do that to someone else?
Should people be receiving nude photos of children that we don't even know they want? If some yucky guy started sending me unsolicited naked pictures of himself most people would feel that qualifies as harrassment. I can't help what someone sends me. She made him a criminal just by sending it to him and putting it in his possession, even if he had never distributed it. What gave HER the right to do that to someone else?
He could've just deleted the picture and then been done with it. What made it criminal for him is by distributing it all over the internet. She's 14, foolish, and just wanted to send a picture to a boy she liked. But he stole her trust and put it up online. And as the article said, he's been watched for months by the police because of other instances dealing with child pornography.
And she could have just not sent the picture in the first place. At the very least, not a naked picture. She is the one who made any of this possible to begin with and it was stupid. Why are we giving this girl a pass for her poor judgment but holding this teenage boy to such a high standard of behavior, expecting them to not show a naked picture to their friends when we all know damn well that is what almost any teen boy would do? Hell, I’d wager that most teen girls would show a picture of their naked boyfriend to at least some of their friends. I know that she isn’t old enough to understand the complexities of trust and maturity in relationships, but she also isn’t old enough to be posing for naked pictures if she can’t handle to social fallout that comes with it. As far as this boy having ‘child porn’ on his computer, I want more details. If the ‘child porn’ he has consists of pictures of other teens who are his peers and not of young children I don’t think he can be considered a pedo for being attracted to females his own age.
"I want more details. If the ‘child porn’ he has consists of pictures of other teens who are his peers and not of young children I don’t think he can be considered a pedo for being attracted to females his own age."
That's a very interesting question I had not thought of. I too, immediately thought, he's got pictures of adult men raping kids? A collection of his "friends" who shared their photos make the situation different, even if the offense is the same under the law.
Is expecting someone (girl in this case) to be more responsible in pictures she takes of herself and whom she shares them with, because she can't know what they'll do with them, where they'll end up, or who will see them; any different from telling women they need to be more responsible about what they wear in public or who they socialize with, because they don't know how people will react or what could happen?
There's a name for that.
any different from telling women they need to be more responsible about what they wear in public or who they socialize with, because they don't know how people will react or what could happen?
Oh boy, where do I start? Right, if you wear a short skirt you are irresponsible and therefore it is your fault that you got raped...?
"Right, if you wear a short skirt you are irresponsible and therefore it is your fault that you got raped...?"
There's a name for that line of reasoning, isn't there? It also applies to the previous poster's:
"And she could have just not sent the picture in the first place. At the very least, not a naked picture. She is the one who made any of this possible to begin with and it was stupid. Why are we giving this girl a pass for her poor judgment but holding this teenage boy to such a high standard of behavior, expecting them to not show a naked picture to their friends when we all know damn well that is what almost any teen boy would do? "
Oh please. Wearing a short skirt is nothing like sending nude pictures of yourself. First of all, this girl was NOT raped. Betrayed? Yes. But not raped. The thing is she voluntarily gave this guy a picture of herself and once she did they NO LONGER BELONGED TO HER. Had he taken pictures of her against her will and people were saying she was dumb, that would be victim blaming. If people blamed him taking secret up skirt pictures or nude pictures via hidden camera on the fact that she was looking too sexy, that would be victim blaming. I’m honestly more concerned that girls seem to see this kind of thing as the primary was to get guys’ approval and there doesn’t seem to be any male equivalent for this behavior.
Do you believe that anything other than stupidity could motivate a young teen woman to behave in "irresponsible" ways to seek approval from males or peers, in a sexist society?
I'm 40 and remember being 14. (I even taught public school 7th-9th grade for three years.) That was a less sophisticated time, but 8th and 9th grade could be characterized by "stupid" and "irresponsible" behaviors, as early adolescence can be, many of which would be readily seen as criminal today, or grounds for instant expulsion under "zero tolerance" policies. I once drew a penis on a school desk, in pencil. It wasn't the first or last genitalia or nude graffiti I'd seen. I wasn't caught, but in any case, the penalty in those days was cleaning desks with soap and a hose outside. I'd probably be in a sex offender registry today as well, and treated as such, just because I was curious about the human body in junior high and did what I noticed someone else had done.
Is this a "Girl Gone Wild," or someone with low self esteem who fell under the influence of what may be a popular boy who receives many such messages from girls seeking his attention? Was the photo REALLY willingly provided out of the blue and unsolicited? No one egged her on? It wasn't coerced? It wasn't any of the "take off your shirt" or "show us your tits" etc., that I commonly see online?
Well said. Thank you.
I didn't say he should get in trouble for possessing the photo, I said he should get in trouble for distributing it. And if we're going to argue about stupidity, the boy had nude photographs of other underage girls on his computer and then thought it would be somehow a good idea to distribute a picture of nude 14 year old across the internet and then KEPT the other child porn on his computer anyway. So, maybe he should be more responsible and have the common sense to know that if you are distributing child pornography and you get caught then the police are probably going to raid your room and find the other child porn which is going to get you in even more trouble.
"Sexting- What do you think about it?"
Hope to god my kids don't get involved with it when they get older, and I don't let my kids around the computer unsupervised or allow them to have phones (they're 8 and 10, come on) because I want to retain some control of who they are in contact with. (I have no control over the kind of kids they hang around with at school or what they talk about or do with no one around. Yes, I can "raise them right," but what are they REALLY doing?)
Would I condemn two teenagers for having consensual sex? Probably not. So I would not call "criminal" any private sex act between the two of them, which is how I would classify a sext. Thus I don't think the 14-year old should be liable for her sext -- it constitutes a private sex act within the context of their relationship.
Okay, first let's just exclude the age and take the general case: person sends a nude picture of oneself to another who ends up distributing the picture without consent.
Is there a victim? Is someone at fault? Yes to both. The person who sends the photo is a victim. The person who distributes it is at fault.
Trust and privacy are completely relevant issues here. When you are in any sort of relationship, whether it be friends, lovers, or even business acquaintances, there is some degree of trust and privacy in the relationship. Deeper and longer relationships usually have more trust and privacy. In sending the picture to the guy, the girl had a sense of trust in him to respect the private nature of the photo. The same thing applies if she had written a letter to him, it is expected to remain private. Even if she had not known him and say, wanted to seduce him or whatever by sending him this one picture, it is still expected to be private--like a little note that she would give him saying she liked him (only her repeating this act after he had declined or told her he did not want such things should it be considered harassment).
All these things, letters, notes, pictures are expected to be kept private within such a relationship--it's just the case that some of these objects are more revealing of an individual than others, which is where the law steps in to protect individuals from massive personal harm (like in the case of a thief stealing a penny versus a million dollars, what would the government focus more on preventing and punishing?).
The girl is a victim, the guy here is the culprit. He breached an initiation of trust that had been established.
Now, since these two are minors, special circumstances might be taken. Since the girl is innocent and shouldn't be punished whatsoever, the fact that she is a minor does not do much to alter her personal situation (if the distributor is a full blown adult, in such a case he should probably get a harsher punishment). Since the boy is underage as well, his punishment should perhaps be lighter, but the unclear situation of his child porn might negate this circumstance.
I refuse to give some dumb teenage puppy love the same credibility as an established adult relationship. I know these teenagers think their 9th grade sweetheart is going to be theirs for eternity, but all that does is show that most teens are too young and stupid to be having sex anyway and certainly aren't prepared to deal with the emotional fallout that can accompany adult behaviors.
Teenagers are stupid, yes. But should the girl be criminally charged and be permanently labeled as a sex offender the rest of her life because of a mindless text like this one?
I see where you are coming from, Levy.
Crumpet, 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. Human beings naturally become sexual when they are teenagers. It's just nature. Teenagers aren't mature enough to understand how their bodies work sexually but that doesn't stop them from feeling sexual. The girl was attracted to the boy, sent him a naked picture as a flirtatious gesture, and the boy maliciously distributed it on the internet. The boy is at fault. This would have never made news if the boy had been mature and had simply deleted the text.
And Crumpet, are you saying that teenagers are not smart enough to have loving, caring, or at least trusting relationships?
The fault I find with your argument is that you simultaneously chastise the two individuals for being "stupid" and "immature", and then again use the same qualities as a defense for the girl's possible charges. So, you won't give teenage relationships the same weight as adult relationships--but see this from the girl's point of view, or namely, her age group. She is 14; she only has her life experiences that have carried her to that age thus far. If she IS truly so "stupid" and "immature," how is she supposed to understand the complexities of a real relationship? Her naivete may be a fault of hers, but then again, not all of us live with a jaded vision of trust and relationships.
As far as relationships go, I know that at fourteen, I had a general understanding of the world (meaning that I believed in trust). I'm only eighteen now, and while I am not yet a full fledged adult, I still know how to love and what trust is and is not with another person. Does that mean that solely because of my age, my relationships are "dumb teenage love"? While I agree that most relationships at that age aren't as mature and serious as those of adults, I don't think you can immediately condemn their relationship to pure stupidity.
If I were to send a text to my friend with personal information, and said friend was to forward it to a public forum, such as the internet, that would be a breach of trust. The difference between that scenario and the situation involving sexting is the presence of the law. Yes, she should not have sent the photo. But what's done is done. The problem, as many have said, is that the boy chose to exploit the private information between the two parties. Just as reporters spin situations to fit their agenda, this sexting case is playing upon the immaturity of two individuals to exploit the girl's private information (in this case, her body).
In this case, yes, I do feel that it is a case of "blaming the victim," since the SPREAD of her photo was against her consent, and done knowingly by someone she felt she could trust, no matter the age.
Just because this relationship may not be as mature and established as some older relationship, does not mean that there is trust and privacy involved. Kids learn what secrets are, and that they should be kept when in elementary school if not before. At their age, they know what to keep private.
The maturity level of the relationship is virtually irrelevant and even undefined. People mature and grow at different rates--we have no right to judge with this little information the maturity levels of these two individuals. But even then, even if these two are immature, they should know when not to kiss and tell, so to say. And if the are not prepared for the fallout of such "adult" behaviors, shouldn't the law be placed to protect these minors, not convict them?
Is the person who sells a gun to a murderer accountable? The situation is similar, by charging this girl with sending the picture and giving the boy an object to use is the same as charging the gun seller.
I do think the girl needs to be charged with something in this case, but I have a somewhat unique view on this.
I am currently studying to be a high school teacher, so are some of my friends. Now in one of our lectures we were warned that high school kids may develop little crushes but as long as we act appropriately it shouldn't be a problem. I think this is one of reasons the underage girl needs to be charged somehow (I do think it should be more of warning though). If a student ever found out my mobile phone number or email (many teachers now allow students to email drafts to them or assignments when they miss class) and decided to send me inappropriate pictures it would be a serious issue. I would most certainly tell my superiors, the child's parents and probably even the police, because the last thing I want is anyone thinking I've taken advantage of a child and student.
This is why I think the girl needs to be punished in someway, the content she has created is illegal. That being said I think a warning would suffice