Message-ID: <59153asstr$1245787801@assm.asstr.org>
From: Paul Robinson <paul@paul-robinson.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:31:26 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.50.66.152; 
	posting-account=erySCAoAAACSC7jPdj99UIT3E-wpYByn
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Subject: {ASSM} Hypocrisy in sex and how to legally pick up hookers
Lines: 220
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:10:01 -0400
Path: assm.asstr.org!not-for-mail
Approved: <assm@asstr.org>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.moderated,alt.sex.stories
Followup-To: alt.sex.stories.d

The following is from my blog at http://paul-robinson.us


There are a number of people who don't want to suggest that an 11-year-
old boy and a 14-year-old girl should be using a condom to have sex
because they're afraid of the girl getting pregnant.

Duh, I have a strong suspicion that when an 11-year-old boy and a 14-
year-old girl end up becoming parents, it's because he wasn't using a
condom!

Over and over and over again, 5,000 years of history tells us that no
matter how much you push abstinence programs, kids still have sex and
because you aren't drilling it into their heads not to have
unprotected sex, some of them (well, the females only but I mean it in
terms of them together having the problem) are getting pregnant and it
ends up being either a disaster or an unmitigated disaster depending
on how bad you consider the problem.

I think there was a story about how there were two female winners of
the contest or scholarship or something like that at some high school
(or it might have been junior high) who wrote the best essay on not
having premarital sex, or on abstinence, or whatever it was, to
basically tell other students at that age that they should not be
having sex. The two girls turned up pregnant.

You look at all the things, the laws making teenagers having sex
criminals, the laws making prostitution illegal, the laws (generally
struck down) making fornication, adultery and sodomy crimes, the laws
that make pornography illegal, or possession or sale of sex toys
illegal, are all a result of the strong puritan background and general
prudishness of sex and the typically hypocritical opinions people
carry around where they publicly condemn various opinions about sex
while at the same time doing things themselves privately that they
themselves claim they wouldn't do or think that they have the right to
declare what other people consent to do to each other to be illegal.

Allow some kids to see two people having sex, if you haven't filled
their heads with all sorts of bad ideas, and they'll just see it as
two people who care about each other and making each other happy.

But we'd call that (showing the explicit video of two people making
love) contributing to the delinquency of minors. But there'd be no
trouble showing two guys beating each other to death to the same
audience of kids, even if it was actually a snuff video. (Which is yet
another urban legend.) I have no idea why showing kids a video of some
guy pounding on his woman (or her pounding on him if it's done "woman
on top") as a result of them having sex and both of them enjoying it
is bad for kids, but show two guys pounding on each other with their
fists to inflict the maximum amount of pain and injury is not.

One shows two people expressing how much they care about each other,
the other shows two people expressing how much they hate each other;
the first can be banned but the second can't. (Which is correct; you
can't ban video of people fighting.)

Which is another thing. If you have a video of the prototypical
example I gave of the 11-year-old boy and the 14-year-old girl having
sex, that's child pornography and illegal to show publicly (and
probably to possess). But if he was beating the crap out of her with
his fists, that would be legal to show in public and to possess.

In fact the fact that kids are now getting cameras and showing
themselves in sexually explicit poses and getting caught in the old
child pornography laws is causing problems nobody thought of.

It's one thing if you want to make illegal pictures of some child who
was raped or otherwise exploited; it's quite another thing when two
kids have consensual sex, which is legal (the laws in their state
follow what is referred to as the 'Romeo and Juliette' exemption where
if they're under 18 but less than 3 or 4 years of age difference it's
not a crime for them to have sex) but the video of them having sex
with each other illegal, and convicting them of distribution of child
pornography by e-mailing it to each other.

I'm not kidding; a court of appeals upheld a felony child pornography
conviction against two kids who did exactly that. It was legal for
them to have sex, but illegal to film it and e-mail it to each other,
and the appeals court gave some weird excuse to argue that it's
important that they be protected against sexual exploitation by giving
them a prison sentence and marking the two of them as sexual predators
who now have to register with the police for the rest of their lives.
(I'm presuming the laws that usually expunge criminal convictions at
18 don't apply to convictions involving sexual offenses.)

At least one judge had the good sense to dismiss an attempt to
prosecute a similar case.

What we need to have is a law on the books that state that you can't
commit a crime as a result of what you do to yourself, and if what
you're doing is in concert with someone else where they also are
consenting to what they are doing to themselves, you can't also be
charged with conspiracy for what the two of you do to each other as
long as it stops short of criminal homicide or similar actions.

After I wrote this, I realized the answer is that it should not be
illegal to film (video) an act or distribute that video if the
underlying act is not in and of itself a crime. This would eliminate
kids from having underage sex because of the exemption for being close
aged, while at the same time, being criminally charged for having
(illegally) recorded the sex they were (legally) having with each
other. Since the sex itself was not illegal, the video of the same
should not be.

But then you still have the problem of charging them with a crime for
what they do to each other. Well, in states where they passed the
example I gave of 'Romeo and Juliette laws' that's been solved, but we
need to do something similar.

But I suspect some people won't like that because it would
decriminalize attempts to commit suicide (which is used as an excuse
to put people who try to kill themselves in a mental institution).
I've heard that in China, (obviously unsuccessful) attempts to kill
yourself are punishable by the death penalty. How ironic.

Whether we should criminalize sex between a 15-year-old and a 40-year-
old is another issue; for a large percentage of cases it's usually
some slimy guy my age hitting on a young girl who's innocent and
doesn't know any better. But sometimes it isn't. I may be old
fashioned, but I think there is a big difference between some 14- 15-
or 16-year-old boy having sex with a woman two or three times his age
(which if people didn't fill his head with sickness, he's going to
think was the greatest thing to happen to him), and some guy my age
doing it with a 15-year-old girl.

Of course, if she's 18, nobody cares. Whether she is really exploited
probably depends on the circumstances. But the law doesn't take that
into account, the general rule is "16 will get you 20." But when they
said that, it was only illegal when a guy had sex with an underage
girl. Nobody tried to argue that some how underage boys had to be
protected from older women.

Nabokov's Lolita is considered an example of exploitation of a minor.
Herman Raucher's Summer of 42, on the other hand, is considered a
touching coming of age story.

Witness some sheriff trying to confiscate copies of the film The Tin
Drum because, apparently it involved a young boy getting laid by some
older woman. Notwithstanding the fact nobody considered this story
objectionable until the movie had been out for twenty years. (A later
court would find the confiscation either was illegal or unwarranted.)

I've never really understood how the Supreme Court found an exception
for pornography in the 1st Amendment. I can understand a law against
child pornography of sexual abuse vicims, but I've never understood
how you can declare material made by adults for adults to be
unprotected by the 1st Amendment other than because some people don't
like it and the courts basically have used that as an excuse to say
that some material can be protected and some can't.

Which made me think of something; if someone videotaped a woman being
raped, would that be considered something which can be made illegal?
Well, as it stands, if she's under 18 it is; I'm not sure what happens
if she's over 18. But if it was a fake for a movie, the one involving
an underage girl probably still remains illegal as child pornography,
but not if she's over 18. To do otherwise would mean the movie The
Accused, where Jodie Foster is raped on a pool table, would be
declared to be obscene and banned same as they would have declared the
movie to be child pornography if it was a simulated rape of a 15-year-
old using an actual underage girl.

This would make an interesting story except I think it was done once.
Before Russ Meyer got into directing porn, he did a movie called The
Seven Minutes about an obscenity trial of a book, and how the
publisher successfully argued the book was art rather than smut.

If you've ever heard of how the U.S. Supreme Court got into deciding
what was or wasn't smut, you might have heard of the Miller case. In
Miller v. California the High Court set down the rules for what is or
isn't obscene. It's got to basically be explicit, dirt for dirt's sake
over the whole film, and have nothing else going for it. ("stimulating
to prurient interest, violates community standards, and utterly
lacking in redeeming social values.") Which would probably cover
almost everything on YouPorn.Com, but in any case, what has happened
is, some porno producers started adding serious commentary as filler
in order to cause the work in question to violate the Miller test and
fail to be obscene. Put a few minutes of argument over the death
penalty, gun control or obscenity itself, and you've got a winner that
fails Miller.

I've heard Miller was basically a not-very-likable guy who used to
pirate other people's porn and sell it himself. I think he tried to
argue when he got caught distributing porn that the stuff he was
selling was obscene and thus not copyrightable (which is correct) but
the judge would point out that the work was illegal to distribute!

Now, let me go onto one of the other items I mention to expose our own
hypocrisy, laws against prostitution. The late, great George Carlin
did it far better than my poor power to add or detract. He pointed out
it's legal to make sales, it's legal to have sex, but it's illegal to
sell sex. It's only illegal do do so openly, if you do something else,
and include sex as something you add free, you can get away with it.
If someone figured out we could have every woman on the street
advertising that she's doing web design for $175 an hour - and
basically you can learn how to do that in 10 minutes - there'd never
be another conviction for prostitution because she'd mention she does
web design, goes to the guy's place, asks to see his computer, and
then waits for him to suggest they have sex. Or maybe she claims to
find him interesting and suggests it. Since she didn't ask for money
for the sex, she's not committed a crime, and he didn't offer money to
have sex, he hasn't either.

Further, she could be carrying around an old computer to perform the
work and could set up the task to be performed.

The point is that $175 an hour for web design is not out of line for
the work, and thus it's going to be hard to claim it's actually for
the sex. When I first got my commission as a notary public I realized
that something similar could be done for street walkers who only
charge $20 or $40, that they get notary commissions and offer to do
mobile notary, where they charge a trip fee for an unlimited number of
notarizations, and then if they "find the guy interesting" suddenly
decide to be willing to have sex with the guy.

I'm not the type to hire hookers but I'll pass on this piece of advice
on how to pick up hookers and be guaranteed you can never get
arrested. You don't ask them for sex when you pick them up; you ask if
they're willing to do nude modeling. If you're talking to a female
cop, she has to turn you down because hiring someone for nude modeling
isn't illegal and she can't bust you; the hooker wouldn't care.

-- 
Pursuant to the Berne Convention, this work is copyright with all rights
reserved by its author unless explicitly indicated.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| alt.sex.stories.moderated ------ send stories to: <story-submit@asstr.org>|
| FAQ: <http://assm.asstr.org/faq.html> Moderators: <story-admin@asstr.org> |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|ASSM Archive at <http://assm.asstr.org>   Hosted by <http://www.asstr.org> |
|Discuss this story and others in alt.sex.stories.d; look for subject {ASSD}|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+