Virginia cops hoping to bust teen for child pornography by, er, taking photos of his erect penis

posted at 8:01 pm on July 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

The kid’s 17, his girlfriend’s 15, and allegedly they ended up doing what horny teens in the age of ubiquitous smartphone cameras tend to do. Then, somehow, her mother found out. Potential result: Juvenile detention until he’s 21 and inclusion on the state’s sex-offender registry if the prosecution can prove that the video on his girlfriend’s phone is of him. Which shouldn’t be a problem, once the police forcibly induce an erection in him and take photos of it.

In related news, I think I just endorsed Rand Paul for president.

“The prosecutor’s job is to seek justice,” said the teen’s defense lawyer, Jessica Harbeson Foster. “What is just about this? How does this advance the interest of the Commonwealth? This is a 17-year-old who goes to school every day, plays football, has never been in trouble with the law before. Now he’s saddled with two felonies and the implication that he’s a sexual predator. I don’t mind trying the case. My goal is to stop the search warrant. I don’t want him to go through that. Taking him down to the hospital so he can get an erection in front of all those cops, that’s traumatizing.”…

The case was set for trial on July 1, where Foster said Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis,” for comparison to the evidence from the teen’s cell phone. Foster asked how that would be accomplished and was told that “we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.”

Here’s Virginia’s child-porn statute, in pertinent part:

B. A person shall be guilty of production of child pornography who:

1. Accosts, entices or solicits a person less than 18 years of age with intent to induce or force such person to perform in or be a subject of child pornography; or

2. Produces or makes or attempts or prepares to produce or make child pornography; or

3. Who knowingly takes part in or participates in the filming, photographing, or other production of child pornography by any means;

When I first glanced at the story, I thought the kid was being charged only for obtaining prurient photos of his 15-year-old girlfriend. In fact, per WaPo, he’s facing two charges, possession of child porn and manufacturing child porn. Is … that why cops want photos of his penis? They’re accusing him of victimizing himself? Or are they accusing him of victimizing her, “manufacturing” porn involving his girlfriend by enticing her into taking photos of herself, with the penis shot needed solely to confirm the identity of the boy who was soliciting her?

If you think it’s insane that a 17-year-old might earn a lifetime stigma as an officially designated pervert by the state of Virginia for something like this, there’s nothing in the child porn statute that appears to exempt someone of his age from charges. There are age-related restrictions — lesser sentences if the victim is between age 15 and 18, for instance — but nothing that says someone who is himself a minor can’t be charged as a child pornographer under the law. Tell your children: No sexting penis pics until they can vote!

Here’s video of the teen and his aunt via NBC Washington. WaPo withheld his name from their story because he’s underage, but the kid’s not seeking anonymity. He wants some public outrage over this and appearing in front of the camera is, he apparently thinks, the first step. Exit question: How come his girlfriend’s not being charged too?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Virginia cops hoping to bust teen for child pornography by, er, taking photos of his erect penis

The cops don’t happen to see the morbid irony in this?

Stoic Patriot on July 9, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Kids being kids…

OmahaConservative on July 9, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Bmore.

Gebirgsjager on July 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Yeah, I agree that it is insane. When I first read it, I thought he was distributing sexts as porn, which could be counted as “manufacturing child porn” if he was enticing young girls to sext him and then distributing it.

But, if they want a shot of his Johnson, they should drop the idea that shots of his Johnson are “child porn”.

Axeman on July 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Serving & Protecting!

Jedditelol on July 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Exit question: How come his girlfriend’s not being charged too?

The Patriarchy made her do it.

Gebirgsjager on July 9, 2014 at 8:09 PM

This goes beyond stupid.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM

War on males. (Seriously).

SouthernGent on July 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Dumb kid thinking but also dumb thinking by the state of Virginia and Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson too. Sorta reminds me of the idiot educators who expelled the five-year-old for chewing the Pop Tart into a gun shape.

jix on July 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Sheesh! I’m jealous.

vnvet on July 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

But, if they want a shot of his Johnson, they should drop the idea that shots of his Johnson are “child porn”.

Axeman on July 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM

^ Almost sounds like this guy thinks context matters.

. . . crazy talker.

Axe on July 9, 2014 at 8:13 PM

I’m going to move from South Texas to Virginia right away!

Apparently crime is so rare there, the authorities have to take pictures of some kid’s erect pen!$ so they can see what child porn looks like.

Dolce Far Niente on July 9, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I didn’t realize folks could be compelled to testify against themselves? Isn’t that basically what this is? What’s next, injecting people with sodium pentothal to get them to confess?

xblade on July 9, 2014 at 8:16 PM

“Exit question: How come his girlfriend’s not being charged too?”

Hey, yeah… That sounds like a question that should be asked by his attorney…

Gearbox on July 9, 2014 at 8:17 PM

LaBoy is a pervert and this is frightening.

J.B. Say on July 9, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Exit question: How come his girlfriend’s not being charged too?

Two words: gender bias.

Stoic Patriot on July 9, 2014 at 8:18 PM

forcibly induce an erection in him and take photos of it.

Isn’t that rape?

Flange on July 9, 2014 at 8:19 PM

In the movie Porky’s, Coach Balbricker demanded a lineup of male students exposed units so she could identify the offending member.

JoeHanson on July 9, 2014 at 8:19 PM

How come his girlfriend’s not being charged too?

She’s a Democrat ?

burrata on July 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Sounds like a certain “prosecutor” has too much time on his hands.

GarandFan on July 9, 2014 at 8:21 PM

This is wrong on so many levels.

Othniel on July 9, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Just what are the cops going to do to him to give him an erection.What perverts!

redware on July 9, 2014 at 8:24 PM

I didn’t realize folks could be compelled to testify against themselves? Isn’t that basically what this is?

xblade on July 9, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Think of it as breathalyzer test. After the cops get you drunk first.

de rigueur on July 9, 2014 at 8:24 PM

How are they going to get it erect. Hire a hooker or make him masturbate in front of them.

RickB on July 9, 2014 at 8:25 PM

No, no, no. This is all a big mistake.

They said Johnson election, not Johnson erection.

faraway on July 9, 2014 at 8:26 PM

The kid’s 17, his girlfriend’s 15, and allegedly they ended up doing what horny teens in the age of ubiquitous smartphone cameras tend to do.

Sad that we view the sexual activity of this 15 yo girl as assumed and expected. It is no longer the rare exception.

America is truly miles off the track.

mankai on July 9, 2014 at 8:26 PM

….taxpayer funded forcible medically induced erect pen$s measuring and photographing is so progressive. Lean forward!!!!

William Eaton on July 9, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Sad that we view the sexual activity of this 15 yo girl as assumed and expected. It is no longer the rare exception.

America is truly miles off the track.

mankai on July 9, 2014 at 8:26 PM

In the 19th century they would have been married in many cases..

So they would have needed the pictures.

William Eaton on July 9, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Imagine if we had iPhones when Billy boy was in WH
;-)

burrata on July 9, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Cops are all better than the rest of us, and saints, and we should do whatever they tell us for our own good!

If your house gets robbed, I wonder who’ll you’ll call? The saintly cops! That proves they can do no wrong and you must trust them no matter what.

/

mankai on July 9, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Imagine if we had iPhones when Billy boy was in WH
;-)

burrata on July 9, 2014 at 8:29 PM

The Bill Clinton XXX Collection in the Smithsonian…

William Eaton on July 9, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Isn’t this sexual abuse of a minor? Arrest the prosecutor!

rbj on July 9, 2014 at 8:33 PM

I’m leaving this thread alone … the subject is just a little too stiff, for me.

listens2glenn on July 9, 2014 at 8:36 PM

forcibly induce an erection in him and take photos of it.

Isn’t that rape?

Flange on July 9, 2014 at 8:19 PM

I don’t know about VA, but in OH forcibly inducing any sexual response in anyone under 18 is statutory rape.

More to the point, it violates the very law they are invoking;

B. A person shall be guilty of production of child pornography who:

1. Accosts, entices or solicits a person less than 18 years of age with intent to induce or force such person to perform in or be a subject of child pornography; or

2. Produces or makes or attempts or prepares to produce or make child pornography; or

3. Who knowingly takes part in or participates in the filming, photographing, or other production of child pornography by any means;

If you’ll pardon the expression, f**king oops.

IMHO, the kid is an idiot. Putting pictures of your “short arm inspection” on any public media is about thirty miles due south of dumba$$.

IMPO, this is so likely to be reversed on appeal, and result in the prosecutor being reprimanded by the appeals court, that I’d love to be the prosecutor’s opponent in the next election. I could just about get him laughed out of his job.

clear ether

eon

eon on July 9, 2014 at 8:36 PM

…Harry Reid wants the pictures!

JugEarsButtHurt on July 9, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Bmore.

Gebirgsjager on July 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Lolz!!! Good evening! ; )

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 8:37 PM

This is a hard case.

docflash on July 9, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Paging Carlos Danger, paging Carlos Danger…

obladioblada on July 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM

It’s good to know that crime is so low in Virginia the cops have time for this. And the courts.

On the other hand, if she were my daughter I would be good and pi$$ed.

JusDreamin on July 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM

eon on July 9, 2014 at 8:36 PM

I meant the forcing of an erection IN him as oppose to ON him is rape.

Flange on July 9, 2014 at 8:41 PM

What exactly are the going to inject him with to cause a boner?

OmahaConservative on July 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM

No common sense

DisneyFan on July 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM

What exactly are the going to inject him with to cause a boner?

OmahaConservative on July 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM

I’ll never admit to wondering the same thing.

JusDreamin on July 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Dumb cops. May I ask if this young girl has already seen everything already on the Internet? I am fairly sure she already has. The age of innocence is over.

SC.Charlie on July 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM

So…Not to put too fine a point on it, but the police will gather evidence of child pornography by forcing a medically induced erection on this teenager and photographing it?

This sounds….odd.

NavyspyII on July 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Exit question. By the definition of VA’s child porn law, if the state goes ahead, will the cops be indicted under the same statute?

Berkie on July 9, 2014 at 8:45 PM

In the movie Porky’s, Coach Balbricker demanded a lineup of male students exposed units so she could identify the offending member.

JoeHanson on July 9, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Heh.

Has anyone seen this prick? Considered armed and dangerous!

NavyspyII on July 9, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I know that fingerprints are unique. But this is the first that I have heard where the government believes that johnson’s are unique.

faraway on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Seems to me that if they want to be sticklers on the exact verbiage of the law (and apparently they do), then they’re hoisted on their own ‘pervert’ petard if they film this kid’s penis.

Murf76 on July 9, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Cops and prosecutors in Virginia have nothing better to do and they want force and erection and photograph it, which by Virginia law means they (the cops and prosecutor) would then be manufacturing child porn?

Kid, make them take you to trial, likely you will get a hung jury.

Wallythedog on July 9, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Think of it as breathalyzer test. After the cops get you drunk first.

de rigueur

Apparently so, lol.

xblade on July 9, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Ridiculous. And in all other eras, they could have just as easily been a married couple and accorded most if not all all the priveleges due to adults.

What’s next, making 26 the new crossover into adulthood? Oh wait…

AH_C on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 PM

The Governor could pardon his p.enis.

faraway on July 9, 2014 at 9:01 PM

I know that fingerprints are unique. But this is the first that I have heard where the government believes that johnson’s are unique.

faraway on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Just how are they planning to present this evidence to a jury?

Wallythedog on July 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM

He got the idea from Congressman Weiner.

slickwillie2001 on July 9, 2014 at 9:09 PM

I left VA around 1978 and never looked back.

Tard on July 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Wouldn’t the police be violating the very same law that they are charging the boy with if they photograph him?

3. Who knowingly takes part in or participates in the filming, photographing, or other production of child pornography by any means;

Absurd.

dont taze me bro on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 PM

So…if the cops and hospital induce and photograph an erection in the underage 17-year-old boy, can the boy turn tables and bring charges of child porn against the cops and hospital staff?

GGMac on July 9, 2014 at 9:14 PM

dont taze me bro on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Like minds…

GGMac on July 9, 2014 at 9:15 PM

This country is literally, becoming one big Effing Joke.

ToddPA on July 9, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Teens are going to sext. Isn’t it less risky than in person sex?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Wouldn’t the police be violating the very same law that they are charging the boy with if they photograph him?

3. Who knowingly takes part in or participates in the filming, photographing, or other production of child pornography by any means;

Absurd.

dont taze me bro on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 PM

And excellent point. It’s pure insanity. But we are being ruled by the insane and the criminal.

Look at the communists and Fascists did to children and it’s all you need to know.

This also reminds me of another story a few years back.. some DA had it in for some other cop or lawyer or somebody.. and wanted to force him to look at videos of child porn with electrodes attached to his penis to see if he got an erection. And if he did.. after being forced to sit in a room by the DA to view the porn that the DA was going to provide.. that would have been proof he was a perv. and the DA was going to prosecute.

It never flew. But the DA tried it.

JellyToast on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

In the movie Porky’s, Coach Balbricker demanded a lineup of male students exposed units so she could identify the offending member.

JoeHanson on July 9, 2014 at 8:19 PM

“It’s Deformed!”

ToddPA on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

This is what we get when we raise our kids up in a morally bankrupt, indulgent, unsupervised and socially depraved environment.

Used to be a time when teens waited until marriage to engage in this behavior. The pendulum certainly has swung to the opposite position of the 1950s & 60s when I grew up.

As someone posted up thread, We certainly have veered off course..and that really is too bad, IMHO.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Teens are going to sext. Isn’t it less risky than in person sex?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Not if they are taught not to, idiot.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM

How is this gonna be on the stand?
Defense lawyer –
Are you a penis expert?
What qualifies you as an expert on penises?
How long have you been able to differentiate between penises?
How often do you hone your penis skills?
How many different penises did you use to make the id?

Who wants that on their record?

TinMan13 on July 9, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Used to be a time when teens waited until marriage to engage in this behavior. The pendulum certainly has swung to the opposite position of the 1950s & 60s when I grew up.

As someone posted up thread, We certainly have veered off course..and that really is too bad, IMHO.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Marriage didn’t used to be delayed for 10-15 years. That’s a long time to expect them to wait. Earlier marriage seems to make for a more stable society than what we currently have.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Serving & Protecting!

Jedditelol on July 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM

To Search and Erect!

MD11Fr8Dog on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Is it just me, or do the authorities sound like bigger perverts than the kid? Criminals ought to move en masse to VA., the legal system is busy busting teenagers for being teenagers.

BettyRuth on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM

In the good ‘ol days the girls father would have given her a stern lecture, confiscated her cell phone and grounded her until she learned some commonsense. Following that he would have had a brief and pointed conversation warning both the boy and the boys parents that future contact of any type would be responded to with far less civil actions.

NiteOwl on July 9, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Ooops, my bad… Uncle Sugah is the father figure these days.

NiteOwl on July 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM

At first I thought AP had been duped by a clever Onion article. Now I only wish he had been.

We have lost our minds.

alchemist19 on July 9, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Marriage didn’t used to be delayed for 10-15 years. That’s a long time to expect them to wait. Earlier marriage seems to make for a more stable society than what we currently have.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Call me an old fart if you will, but I much prefer the old manner of doing these things. Children were born to married couples and not to single women who 3/4ths of the time have no clue who the daddy is.

We had families with the same surnames back in those days. Those days are history, I know. So is traditional, exceptional America.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Call me an old fart if you will, but I much prefer the old manner of doing these things. Children were born to married couples and not to single women who 3/4ths of the time have no clue who the daddy is.

We had families with the same surnames back in those days. Those days are history, I know. So is traditional, exceptional America.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:41 PM

I agree. It also made for a far better life expectation as far as general quality, happiness, addictions, marriage, and educational outcomes.

Which of course is why the left wants to see it destroyed.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Yep. And I read the crap that losers like libiotfreeandlie post and I simply weep for what once was.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:48 PM

So the prosecutor, all attending officers, the doctor and medical staff will all be immediately arrested once the photo is taken, right?

ROCnPhilly on July 9, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Fourth Amendment doesn’t cover penis recognition forensic experts?

frost_ on July 9, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Not if they are taught not to, idiot.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Yeah, it’s this generation of parents who are going to figure out how to keep teens from some form of sexual activity. Right.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Child porn laws are supposed to only be for actual child pornographers who sexually abuse children and then film/distribute/sell/buy it, yet they are written in absurdly broad ways in order to make it a cake walk for prosecutors to get easy convictions. No need to prove pesky things like facts, and as far as abuse? Trust us, say the police and DAs, trust us not to abuse this ridiculously overbroad power. Umm… okay.

Adolescents sext all the time. Destroying their lives as a means of coercive social conditioning is cruel, insane, and makes you a bad person for wanting to do it. It is like destroying someone’s life because they smoked a joint. It is one thing to frown on drugs and discourage their use, but you’re not making the world a better place by destroying people who happen to have victimless vices.

Child porn laws need to be restricted to COMMERCIAL child porn, like they were meant to. Buying, selling, trading, and making it in order to buy/sell/trade. Those are the real crimes. When couples take pics of each other, they doesn’t become a horrific crime just because one is under 18. As long as it isn’t being distributed intentionally, no one should care. It is not my business or your business what couples do.

The whole point of child porn laws is to protect victims. This guy took a pic of himself and texted it. Uhh… so to protect him from… himself? you’re going to destroy his life.

It is also idiotic that we have a “black or white” sex offender system. It is not that simple. Lumping in minor offenders with rapists and child molesters is insane and stupid on every level. Lifetime registration should be reserved for only the most serious offenders, and all the lesser offenders should be dealt with in other ways, such as being tracked by non-public police databases for a limited number of years. Public registration has no real law enforcement purpose, it is purely a way of destroying people’s lives and shaming them for the rest of their lives. That might be justifiable if they did something truly monstrous or predatory, but you can end up as a registrant for very minor things, this kid being a good example.

kaltes on July 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Not if they are taught not to, idiot.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM

I believe you have something to say to

kaltes on July 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:55 PM

bimmcorp Jul 09, 2014 at 9:29 pm

This is what we get when we raise our kids up in a morally bankrupt, indulgent, unsupervised and socially depraved environment.
Used to be a time when teens waited until marriage to engage in this behavior. The pendulum certainly has swung to the opposite position of the 1950s & 60s when I grew up.

The majority of couples did not wait for marriage in the 1950s and 1960s. You are idealizing your youth. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/

cam2 on July 9, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Yep. And I read the crap that losers like libiotfreeandlie post and I simply weep for what once was.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:48 PM

Hothouse flower.

Liberalism/progressivism always leads to authoritarian (Marxist/Fascist) government and that is where libfree and company will meet harsh reality. Governments like that never have much use for the avant-garde weirdos. Conformity is what they are all about and they are not gentle about how they enforce it.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM

I agree. It also made for a far better life expectation as far as general quality, happiness, addictions, marriage, and educational outcomes.

Which of course is why the left wants to see it destroyed.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Um. Except far more Americans used hard drugs prior to World War II than do now. What you are remembering was a relatively brief moment in the nation’s history. The height of Cold War America. It lasted about 15 years, and then faced gradual declines ever since. When we think about American’s “traditional” behaviors. Heavy drug use is far more ingrained than not.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 10:05 PM

Teens are going to sext. Isn’t it less risky than in person sex?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Not if they are taught not to, idiot.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Just how are you going to teach horny teens not to sext on their smartphones? Are you some kind of a super parent that teens actually listen too? Are you going to bring them to Jesus?

In Occupied Europe during WWII, listening to the BBC could get you sent straight to a death camp. Yet, people even in Nazi Germany still listened to the BBC. Teach teens not to sext, good luck buddy.

Wallythedog on July 9, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Is it just me, or do the authorities sound like bigger perverts than the kid? Criminals ought to move en masse to VA., the legal system is busy busting teenagers for being teenagers.

BettyRuth on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Brilliant Post.

ToddPA on July 9, 2014 at 10:09 PM

kaltes on July 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM

hear hear!

SgtSVJones on July 9, 2014 at 10:10 PM

This is the ridiculous end of our “Get tougher on crime by making everything a crime” mentality. Badly written laws and stupid prosecutions like this have given the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but not really safer than other advanced countries with lower incarceration rates.

AngusMc on July 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM

Virginia aint for lovers

losarkos on July 9, 2014 at 10:13 PM

The majority of couples did not wait for marriage in the 1950s and 1960s. You are idealizing your youth. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/

cam2 on July 9, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Citing a survey is real keen, my friend. It does nothing to alter the reality of my youth. You speak of sex by age 30 and 44. My point was that youngsters (teens) still at home were not, as a rule, promiscuous.

At least they were not in my Southern California neighborhood.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Just how are you going to teach horny teens not to sext on their smartphones? Are you some kind of a super parent that teens actually listen too? Are you going to bring them to Jesus?

In Occupied Europe during WWII, listening to the BBC could get you sent straight to a death camp. Yet, people even in Nazi Germany still listened to the BBC. Teach teens not to sext, good luck buddy.

Wallythedog on July 9, 2014 at 10:08 PM

It is not an easy task, Son, but parenting requires a certain commitment that most of you young punks just do not make.

First of all, I am not supportive of allowing a teen the unrestricted use of a ‘Smartphone’. I don’t care how many of their friends have them, mine would not.

My children would be home schooled and they would be brought with my wife and I to Sunday services, where they would be taught morality. They would be taught the same morality at home.

I would not allow HBO or other filthy programming into our living room either. Our focus would be on a more wholesome life style.

I could go on and on , but clowns such as you will only mock and spew your insults regarding Jesus and the teachings found in the Bible. Knock your socks off.

I happen to know many folks in my area who have very well grounded, morally disciplined teenagers. They have all been taught from an early age to respect themselves, their others and their Father God.

You and your ilk find humor in all of this, and I really feel pity for you. You have my prayers, Mr. Dog. Bless your little heart.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Citing a survey is real keen, my friend. It does nothing to alter the reality of my youth. You speak of sex by age 30 and 44. My point was that youngsters (teens) still at home were not, as a rule, promiscuous.

At least they were not in my Southern California neighborhood.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:16 PM

I doubt most people even in the 50s expected an adult in their 40s to be a virgin so I don’t know what this study proves. It doesn’t seem to differentiate between premarital sex with the marriage partner, and promiscuity in general.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM

I believe you have something to say to

kaltes on July 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:55 PM

And I believe you would, as usual, be wrong, perfessor.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:29 PM

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Yep. I was speaking of teenagers, and this person brings up 30 year old and up. It’s all they have, I guess.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:31 PM

Jul 09, 2014 at 10:16 pm bimmcorp

My point was that youngsters (teens) still at home were not, as a rule, promiscuous.
At least they were not in my Southern California neighborhood.

I suspect you are forgetting all of the shotgun marriages and 8 pound “premature” babies! ;-)

cam2 on July 9, 2014 at 10:31 PM

Jul 09, 2014 at 9:29 pm bimmcorp
This is what we get when we raise our kids up in a morally bankrupt, indulgent, unsupervised and socially depraved environment.
Used to be a time when teens waited until marriage to engage in this behavior. The pendulum certainly has swung to the opposite position of the 1950s & 60s when I grew up.
As someone posted up thread, We certainly have veered off course..and that really is too bad, IMHO.

I think you are missing what the morally bankrupt part of this story is.

verbaluce on July 9, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Yeah, it’s this generation of parents who are going to figure out how to keep teens from some form of sexual activity. Right.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Well, if y’all don’t figure it out, there is little hope for you. And I never suggested we keep teens from ANY form of sexual activity.

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

I suspect you are forgetting all of the shotgun marriages and 8 pound “premature” babies! ;-)

cam2 on July 9, 2014 at 10:31 PM

While today they would be suctioned out in the local abortion mill, or the single baby-mama would use the kid as a welfare check.

Such an improvement.

sharrukin on July 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

I think you are missing what the morally bankrupt part of this story is.

verbaluce on July 9, 2014 at 10:32 PM

I think you are, as usual, wrong, verbaldouche. I am aware of the notion that the authorities are committing the same offense that the accused is charged with.

My point is that you and a host of others posting here have the morals of alley cats, and if you would attempt to raise your children with a certain restraint and respect for themselves and their sexuality, we would not have this epidemic of depraved behavior.

But y’all just can’t bring yourselves to fault your own parenting skills or lack of virtue. I know…let’s blame Bush…

bimmcorp on July 9, 2014 at 10:43 PM

That’s the problem with legalities and attempts at absolutes with these issues. Among their own age group, they can engage in orgies and it gets written off with comments such as “rite of passage”, “playing doctor”, “Hell, when we were kids…”

What they really would like is some dirty, smelly old pervert to nail and list as a sex offender for the rest of his life. But all they have is a couple of underage, un-coerced teens.

What to do, what to do.

Try this revision out:

The kid’s 15, her boyfriend is 65, and allegedly they ended up doing what many in the age of ubiquitous smartphone cameras tend to do.

All of a sudden it is a shocking crime.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 9, 2014 at 11:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2