That is a crime, right?  There’s really no reason to think that in a sane world, Officer Gay wouldn’t be sued and/or arrested, right?

Of course, the best defense against sex predators for teenage girls is to get a policeman as a boyfriend. He can get you a gun, too, and a permit.
Just wait till you see what protects-and-serves up to anybody who tries to molest their child!

See, now police are selected from the assholes, sexually and gender-identification- twisted population. Of course, basic snitchery is the minimal prerequisite. Just think, soon torturers will be available to even the most isolated and rural police department.

Awesome. More teenage girls abused by ‘caring’ authority figures in the name of another goddamn moral panic. What the hell is wrong with people?

Wow.  Just wow.  I must admit that I’ve had a bit of an issue with threading the needle regarding my own teenage daughter’s MySpace page, making sure that she has freedom to do her thing, without, you know, showing too much of her things.  But this is ridiculous.  While humiliation can be an effective tool for inducing good behavior in people, I think it’d be more appropriate against jerks like that cop, rather than teenage girls who already suffer from self-esteem issues.  He really could have made the same point using the MySpace pages of girls who weren’t there; and even then, it would have been a bit creepy for him to have taken things as far as he did.  That’s just weird.

And I mean, really, not to be rude, but I suspect anyone growing up in Wyoming with the last name “Gay” is bound to have some definite sexual issues.  Just sayin’…

Is MySpace even really that much of a risk for stranger attacks?  I thought it was mostly a problem because it was a source of bullying from people you know.

I’m kind of pleasantly surprised that there’s outrage.

This guy, hired by the school and paid for with tax money, has just psychologically damaged these girls in EXACTLY the same way that a sexual predator would.

These people need to go to jail.  It’s like briefly raping somebody to make them aware of rape.  Or shooting a kid to let him know about gun safety.

Personally, I think it’s shitty to tell someone that X sexy thing on their myspace page is going to get them stalked, raped, whatever.  It really leads down that slippery slope of victim blaming.  Not to mention that you can easily be stalked or raped if you have a perfectly respectable myspace page.  Saying, “If you put slutty pictures on myspace, some hardened ex-con is going to find them and then come rape you when he gets out of jail next month!” just creates this false sense of security, that as long as you play by the rules of Good Girl-ness and don’t act like A Slut, nothing bad can ever happen to you. 

I mean, at least the original Scared Straight had some basis in real life consequences.  You steal a car?  Gonna end up in jail.  Get caught with illegal drugs?  Gonna end up in jail.  Start fights?  Gonna end up in jail.  It’s simplistic, but at least the world actually works that way. 

Unfortunately, avoiding sexual assault is not as simple as keeping your myspace page chaste.

And I’d also add that the only potential problem to be absolutely expected with a slutty myspace page is “people will think you’re slutty!” I will admit that some young girls don’t really have that intention, they just get overloaded with media where all teenage girls are sexualized to the point where they don’t realize that Those Pictures Don’t Look “Cool”, They Look Like Porn, because that is what every picture in Seventeen magazine looks like.  But for the girls who want to put sexualized pictures up, who know what they’re doing and are fine with it?  Oh, god forbid someone might think they are Teh Slutteeeee!!!!!!1!!11!!!

I was under the impression that the original Scared Straight program was a last-ditch measure for kids who were already in at least some trouble, and who had had regular humane counseling to no avail.

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that the mere state of being a teenager is considered halfway to hell; things were headed that way (oh God) 25 years ago when I was in high school. But still.

Amanda, you will make an excellent helicopter parent (as long as your precious snowflake is a girl).  Mustn’t tell your kids they have done something stupid, or wrong.

Not saying the cop’s behavior is right, just saying this is delusion on your part, AND you who’ve blogged long about Kathy Sierra should know it:

with the sense of control that the internet can give you-

What’s wrong with having someone in jail masturbate to your picture?  It’s better than having them rape each other by far.  I certainly wouldn’t mind it if someone masturbated to my picture (though I can’t see why anyone would), so long as I don’t know about it—then it becomes a bit awkward.  In a completely one-way situation like that, there’s no victim.  Cyberrape (I made this term up, but I’m referring to cybersex without consent) is certainly wrong.  But if you don’t actually involve the “victim” in any way, there is no victim.

That said, yeah, this guy needs to be removed from the force immediately.

Mustn’t tell your kids they have done something stupid, or wrong.

Yes, because being sexy is WRONG!!!!!!!!

I also think there’s a very obvious line between parenting your child, and sending them off to be sexually harassed by a cop.  It’s possible to sit one’s young daughter down after seeing their myspace page and talk to them about the image of themselves that they’re putting out there, what it means, whether and how it represents them.  This is a good conversation to have with your kid, in fact boys should be subject to it, too. 

I even think it’s appropriate not to let your kid use myspace, especially if they’re very young—a lot of 12 and 13 year olds lie about their age to get on myspace, because it’s the cool thing to do.  A 12 year old posting borderline porn to myspace is a real worry.  A 16 year old, let her live her own life (with maybe a little advice or guidance or discussion, if you’re really concerned).

The officer’s purpose was apparently to discourage teenagers from making themselves targets by posting personal information on the Internet that they wouldn’t want in their high school yearbooks.  The Internet is forever, and putting these images on the web is a bad idea, even if the only damage is if some Rove-inspired competitor for a job may later steer potential employers to those pages.  Remember those female law students who lost out on associate attorney jobs and clerkships this way?

That said, the means by which this officer tried to achieve that end were truly repulsive and counter-productive.  Blindsiding teenagers with public ridicule is counter-productive, and I expect the officer just made targets out of those women for every teenage boy who hasn’t figured out the difference between dating and date rape.  Predator pressure, indeed.

Certainly, the officer should be disciplined and given a lifetime ban from public education work - but he also needs to be given training on how to act in public.  There’s more to policing than brute force and humiliation, and that officer doesn’t seem to grasp this basic fact.

In my high school, the teenage behavior about which they tried to scare us straight was driving a car.  The scare tactic was to show us a movie of young people grotesquely maimed in car accidents.  We called it The Barf Bag Movie.  It did not prevent, sadly, some of my classmates from dying in car wrecks.  I’m not sure any such scare tactic would have.

It’s too bad, sometimes I think, that I don’t want to be a parent, but assholes like sure sure do.  I’d do a better job of it, because I grasp the fundamental first rule, which is not to make them feel like terrible people just because they exist.

Saw this on the news and wanted to puke.  That officer just stood up in loco parentis and told a school assembly that anybody who’d been raped, harassed or otherwise assaulted, well, they brought in on themselves.  It is, as Opoponax says, a classic victim-blaming setup. 

Then he moved on to critiquing individual students’ Myspace presentations?  It just gets worse and worse.  This officer just created a whole new level of hell for boys who’ll think maybe they’re supposed to use misogynistic social standards in their relationships with girls and women.  And for girls who have heard from a million different nebulous sources that “you’re only worthwhile when you’re sexy” right alongside “your sexuality will always, finally, be interpreted as a personal failure.”

Because somehow I don’t think Officer Gay’s presentation was the first time these kids had heard talk like this.  Having a uniformed officer come to school and announce it with A/V aids probably really drove the point home though.

I think that police department just earned itself some long days in rape and harassment procedurals training and evaluations.  I think the local parents should be aware that this attitude has probably afflicted their town’s sexual violence reporting, arrests and prosecutions.  I hope those kids are ok.

Plus, sure sure, the last thing you should be teaching girls is that the punishment for the “crime” of dressing a certain way is sexual harassment or assault.  Sorry, but the criminal is the person harassing or assaulting, regardless of what the victim was wearing.  If you teach your daughter this, if she does get raped, she’ll blame and hate herself---even if she was wearing a potato sack---and probably will be discouraged from pressing charges.  And it’ll be your fault.  Which I’m not afraid of saying, because I’m not afraid to scare you straight or tell you you’re wrong.

I didn’t say being sexy was wrong, but then it really doesn’t matter what anyone says does it, if they disagree here.  The important thing it to construe their words in the worst possible way and so reinforce the theme of the post, right?

Posting “sexy” or “slutty” pictures of yourself on myspace is extraordinarily stupid for many reasons.  Reasons of violence.  Reasons of privacy.  Employment.  Whether you’re a teen boy or teen girl, it’s really stupid, especially if you’re underage.  Ask Kathy Sierra what she would think of such behavior.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you are smart to do so.  Just because your cellphone can take pictures and you are smart enough to register a myspace page doesn’t mean you’re being brilliant to post every picture you take up on myspace, regardless of what your parents and Amanda tell you.

If you want to express your sexuality, fine.  But don’t pretend that myspace is anyway to do that with any control.  And don’t buy Amanda’s nonsense that either a) it is a place you control, or b) your erroneous sense of control is what’s important.

The internet is a terrific place because of all the freedom and the very little regulation and oversight.  But that makes it in many cases, a dangerous place, and it is the feminists that make this claim best, when they say they need heavy moderation in their forums in order to keep women safe.

Amanda really can’t have it both ways: Myspace is a safe place that women can express their sexuality safely and control AND that pandagon et. al., are places that need banning, deleting, disemvoweling, bunnying, and everything else because women need safe spaces.

Plus, sure sure, the last thing you should be teaching girls is that the punishment for the “crime” of dressing a certain way is sexual harassment or assault.

Well, golly gee Amanda, can you point out where I said that?  (And I do realize you just use other people simple posting of a comment as a blank sheet for you to project your issues on, but I wish you’d stop, it’s not polite.)

posting personal information on the Internet that they wouldn’t want in their high school yearbooks.  The Internet is forever, and putting these images on the web is a bad idea, even if the only damage is if some Rove-inspired competitor for a job may later steer potential employers to those pages.  Remember those female law students who lost out on associate attorney jobs and clerkships this way?

I’ve learned from personal experience that stuff you put on the web back in high school gets REALLY hard to find 5-10 years later.  I made a Personal Website (hosted on GeoCities, methinks) when I was about 17 which was mainly just a lot of bad poetry and copious evidence of what a Trekkie I was.  I Googled myself for the first time when I was about 21 and found it, 10-15 pages in.  I recently wanted to see if I could find it again, and spent a long time searching for things that I thought would help me find it, to no avail.  10 years later, that stuff is basically gone from the Internet.  If someone wanted to dig up dirt on me, they probably wouldn’t have my earnest teenage geekiness at their disposal anymore.

Hell, the stuff you want people to find starts disappearing only a few years down the pike.  Used to be that my bio from the website of an arts group I once worked with was the first hit under my name in Google.  Now you have to go a few pages in.  In another few years, it’ll probably be far enough back there that only the truly desperate would ever find it.  In a decade, there will be no web evidence that I was ever affiliated with such a group.

I will also add that I closed my MySpace account about a year ago, and when you google me, it does not come up.  Even 15 pages in.  I guess you could probably access it through the wayback machine, but damn, you would have to really want the dirt on me—an ordinary background check would probably be more fruitful.

I would also guess that very, very few teenagers will ever be up for the sort of jobs where someone is going to be trying to dig up dirt on them from as far back as high school and have something like that stick.  A photo of you posing seductively (fully clothed, with neither a cock nor a bong in your mouth) at age 15 is probably NOT going to have an impact on your future job prospects.  Most of the examples of this which have been in the news have been examples of people whose CURRENT myspace page had “suspicious” material, and it wasn’t a life-shattering type of thing, but more like “well I guess your pageant career is pretty much finished..."*

I’ll also add that most of these sorts of admonitions, from when I was a teenager (in my case it was a lot of warnings about the dire consequences of dying your hair purple, or getting your nose pierced, or dressing like a “satanist") turned out to be bullshit.  I’m 27 now, and despite all my teenage antics, I have a great life which hasn’t been hampered in any way by activities that were mildly socially deviant. 

* And previous questionable activities could ruin your pageant career even before MySpace came out; see also Williams, Vanessa.

I don’t want to post too much and hijack your thread, but I am curious:

“Sorry, but the criminal is the person harassing or assaulting, regardless of what the victim was wearing.”

I agree with this 100%.  And to take it further, the rapist is the person responsible for the rape.  Do you agree?

If so, what do you think of courts assigning child support to male victims of rape?  Where say the male is 15 and the rapist 22 or 33?  Pretty bogus, huh?  I mean, talk about blaming the victim....

sure sure, I think you’re the one who is wilfully misconstruing.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you are smart to do so.

...is precisely what Amanda said in her post. She just advocated getting this point across in a different way than the idiot policeman, i.e. a way that recognises teenage girls are human beings with a right to their sexuality *and* to their safety, rather than victim-blaming them.

I don’t see how you get this:

Amanda really can’t have it both ways: Myspace is a safe place that women can express their sexuality safely and control AND that pandagon et. al., are places that need banning, deleting, disemvoweling, bunnying, and everything else because women need safe spaces.

from this:

I’m not suggesting that it’s wise for teenage girls to pose for pictures in their underwear and put that online, of course.  But if you start with the premise that they have a right to their sexuality, then it will be a lot easier to talk to them.  Because then you can see what they’re trying to do---which is largely about expressing and exploring sexuality with the sense of control that the internet can give you

Most generously, I think you are misunderstanding “control.” Amanda doesn’t mean that the young girls control Myspace. It’s not, as you say, the *place* that is the object of control, but the sexual expression itself. The Internet allows an avenue of largely autonomous expression that is often not available to women, particularly young women in other areas of their lives.

Less generously, I think you’re deliberately misreading the post for the sake of your own hobby horse. You go on at length about how foolish it is to put certain pictures on Myspace, “regardless of what Amanda will tell you” but Amanda quite explicitly says the opposite: “I’m not suggesting that it’s wise for teenage girls to pose for pictures in their underwear and put that online, of course.

But even if a young woman does do something unwise and pose for pictures in their underwear to be published online, harassment, stalking, rape, etc. are not inevitable consequences unless you take the view that the harassers, stalkers, rapists, etc. are not responsible for their actions.

sure sure—cite, please.

Er, to clarify, I should say “expression of their sexuality” or “sexualized expression\” rather than sexual expression, which sounds too much like a euphemism.

I also think there’s a very obvious line between parenting your child, and sending them off to be sexually harassed by a cop.  It’s possible to sit one’s young daughter down after seeing their myspace page and talk to them about the image of themselves that they’re putting out there, what it means, whether and how it represents them.  This is a good conversation to have with your kid, in fact boys should be subject to it, too.

The Oppoponax,

I completely agree with this, especially the fact that boys should also be included in this.  After graduating from college and working for a few years and later, attending grad school found too many current undergrads are oblivious to the dangers of posting too much personal information or otherwise stuff which may convey a negative impression that could cause problems with family members, friends, and future employers/grad schools. 

Many of the male undergrads who ignored my warnings about posting pictures of their being wasted in the aftermath of drunken weekend escapades...some complete with vomit were quite shocked when their offers of employment....some at prominent places such as Goldman Sachs, McKinsey & Company, Google, etc were rescinded because those photos conveyed an image contrary to the professionalism those employers expect from their employees. 

Not to say there’s anything wrong with going on drunken weekend escapades and being wasted....just keep any evidence of such private and away from the internet. 

Until there is some sort of Federal privacy law prohibiting employers from basing their hiring decisions on information gained from trolling the internet for personal websites, public networking sites, and other places......that’s the unfortunate reality of life in many workplaces...especially in the corporate sector.  I’m not going to hold my breath.....as that’s not going to happen as there are some legitimate reasons for doing so....avoiding liabilities for various forms of discriminatory behaviors/harassment for one....

Question for the pearl clutchers out there:  my Facebook profile photo has me wearing an obviously Muslim-inspired head scarf.  What is the likelihood that this will cause me to lose a job somewhere down the road?

If you think it is likely that a photo of me in a headscarf would present a problem, how do you juxtapose that with the idea that people whose photos are too “sexy” will also have negative consequences?  If both are full of Fail, what do you think that says about our culture?

To what extent should people censor their online behavior, outside of the obvious stuff like blatantly pornographic material, or the depiction of criminal acts?  Is anything that might pique some jackass’s biases fair game?

At what point, sure sure, did I say that a girl shouldn’t get some kind of guidance on what’s appropriate to put online?

Oh wait, I didn’t.  But you sure did support the “just thoughtlessly condemn” model, which does lead directly to blaming the victim.  So if your daughter gets raped, and can’t cope---it’s your fault.  Scared straight, yet?  Or does shaming only count if the victim is a teenager?

I’d suggest that instead of demonizing your daughter for growing up and wanting to be with boys, it would be smarter to validate that desire.  Instead of doing what you’re supporting---you dirty whore!---perhaps, “You’re growing up and it’s normal and good that you want to express yourself and put yourself out there.  Unfortunately, there’s a lot of assholes out there.  Let’s find safe ways for you to express yourself and experiment.”

I agree with this 100%.

And yet you supported sexual harassment verging on assault as a proper tool to punish young women who do things you don’t approve of.  That is, after all, what this cop did.  But you’re blaming me and the young women, anyone but the person who got off on dominating and sexually harassing a teenage girl.  Moron.  I really hope you don’t have kids to traumatize.

Wait, who is this “John F. Homosexual III of the Cheyenne Police Department?”

Or are my filters acting up again?

Boy. 

Am I ever tired of hearing that others’ perceptions of my sexuality will lead to violent acts against me that are all my own fault ‘cause I’m so stupid.  ‘Cause sexy is stupid.  Or something.

I mean, how can people repeat this stuff over and over and never notice where the real stupid is coming from?  (Ahem:  I believe the stupid is coming from the tedious people who repeat this stuff.)

Blerg.

...my Facebook profile photo has me wearing an obviously Muslim-inspired head scarf.  What is the likelihood that this will cause me to lose a job somewhere down the road?

It shouldn’t.  But if Michelle Malkin sees it, all bets are off.

“A better idea would be to open up the question of whether or not men can control themselves and not rape (yes), and move on from there.”

This is crucial. We are still constrained by a society that says “boys will be boys.” Not true. Boys (and girls) will do what they are taught to do, by our behavior and our reactions to their behavior. Men and women are accountable for all of their actions. It is a denigration of males to pretend that they cannpt control their impulses. They can. And it’s a denigration of females to say that their sexuality must be hidden for their own safety. This absurd idea has to be excised from our culture. It’s a poisonous lie.

All people have the right to be themselves without fear of attack.

The Drug War was and is not “equal opportunity,” and it is premised on the same idea at work with the harrassment of women and teenagers - that people’s private behavior is always of public concern, and teenagers especially need to be indoctrinated into that norm. And it is important to note that Officer Gay’s harrassment would be just as awful if male students had been the targets or he had been ranting about drugs and then threatening students with prison rape or something like that. I know libertarian principles do not make for as much of a rallying cry and are not popular here, but why don’t we just leave people alone and stop making everyone miserable with imaginary bogeymen trotted out to empower the state and bureaucrats? And do not give me the “drugs have bad consequences while female sexuality does not” argument, because not all drugs do, the Drug War has never been about consequences but about self-righteously ferreting out perceived immorality (just like the Right’s war on sex and female sexuality in particular), and a punitive approach does not remedy bad consequences anyway. The principle at work here is leave people alone, not that drugs are bad and female sexuality is okay. Anyway, as soon as you endorse the idea that such culture wars are appropriate to target what the majority thinks is bad or wicked, female sexuality could as easily be on as off the list of sins.

Just a slight correction: Windsor is in northern Colorado (between Fort Collins & Greeley), not Wyoming.  The police officer from Cheyenne Wyoming was brought down ~50 miles from out of town to give this presentation, apparently by the principal who was his friend.  This wasn’t set up by the town’s police, nor apparently by the school district.

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080823/WINDSORBEACON01/808230322/-1/WINDSORBEACON

A substantial fraction of the town and parents are appalled and want the principal removed; others support the principal and scare tactics.

sure sure:

Plus, sure sure, the last thing you should be teaching girls is that the punishment for the “crime” of dressing a certain way is sexual harassment or assault.

Well, golly gee Amanda, can you point out where I said that?

The fact that you can’t see the (rather clear) implication of your argument is not proof that no one else can, either. Next time, try thinking about something for more than a quarter of a second before you start pontificating about it.

To what extent should people censor their online behavior, outside of the obvious stuff like blatantly pornographic material, or the depiction of criminal acts?  Is anything that might pique some jackass’s biases fair game?

Unfortunately, the answer is sometimes yes. 

One absurd case of this was when Stacy Snyder was denied her teaching certification despite good evaluations because her myspace site had a Halloween picture of her dressed as a “Drunken Pirate” which was deemed “unprofessional” by both the administrators at the school where she was student teaching and Millersville University as seen here:

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2029

This case is one reason I wish there was some sort of law/regulation providing some sort of professional/personal barrier so people are allowed to live out their personal lives without having to subject themselves to Orwellian surveillance.

Tomp in Windsor, thanks for the reminder.  I read through the comments at the link and saw that people are voicing the other big question in my mind - Why on earth didn’t a teacher shut this down, once they saw where it was going?  What would the repercussions for that act have been?

Initially, authorities defended the asshole.

Don’t they always?

Luke, noone here defended the Drug War. People pointed out that, no matter what one might thing of “Scaring Straight” or the Drug War, as long as the Drug War is going on, telling people that they might go to jail for using drugs at least has some connection to reality, while telling people that wether they get raped depends entirely on wether they’re modest enough doesn’t.

Sure sure, apparently your whole position in this debate is based on the idea that Amanda said that people are in control when put stuff online. Amanda didn’t say that. So your entire position here seems to be based on misreading Amanda’s initial post. Kind of funny, given that you’ve complained several times about other people misreading you.

It’s fascinating how strong opinions of any kind can make people read all kinds of stuff into what other people are saying.

(For the record, I don’t think that sure sure defended Gay.)

Posting “sexy” or “slutty” pictures of yourself on myspace is extraordinarily stupid for many reasons.  Reasons of violence.  Reasons of privacy.  Employment.  Whether you’re a teen boy or teen girl, it’s really stupid, especially if you’re underage.  Ask Kathy Sierra what she would think of such behavior.

Given that Kathy Sierra received sexualized death threats for blogging about technical user interface issues while female, I’m not sure Kathy Sierra would have anything to say about posting sexy pictures. I think she might possibly suggest “don’t post anything at all under your real name”. Or else “post whatever you want, because if they’ll post pictures of you being suffocated to death in sexualized poses for blogging about user interfaces, you can’t make matters worse by posting sexy pictures online.”

I have a ten year old daughter. My philosophy is pretty simple. No information that’s linked to her real name, whatsoever. She wants to have a myspace page, she can have a myspace page with an Internet handle. No real address, no real phone number, no real names of her loved ones. Within those parameters, if she wanted to post a picture of herself in a bikini… well, ok, she’s ten. I would not want her to do that *now*. When she’s 14 if she wants to post a picture of herself in a bikini, she can, as long as her real name is not attached to it and she practices basic internet-RL safety procedures when arranging a meetup with online friends, such as meeting in a public place, going with an adult, etc.

And I have the exact same rules for my 12-year-old son.

Given the example of Kathy Sierra, the problem isn’t related in the slightest to sexy pictures. It’s related to people knowing who you really are. And given that a guy who posts his picture and his interests and his real life location is *just* as likely to suffer career damage for it, and could well suffer violence or ostracism for it if his opinions are not mainstream, it is insane to make this an issue of teen girls posting sexy pictures when in fact it’s an issue of people posting *anything* under their real name.

For the record, I use my real name on everything. I am also fully prepared to own everything I have said and done online. I don’t have *any* pictures posted, let alone stupid ones, ones of me being a drunken pirate, or sexy ones, and I have a phone number that cannot be used to look up my address, and I have notified my state department of motor vehicles that I don’t want my address released to inquiries unless law enforcement is involved. A PI or a really dedicated individual *could* find me, and I accept that risk. But I’m an adult, and I didn’t get onto the internet until I was an adult, and I was aware of the risks and the longevity of Internet information all along. A child will do stupid stuff because they’re a child, so to me the problem is not that children are doing stupid stuff but that they’re putting their real names on it.

Corduroy: What would the repercussions for that act have been?

Getting tasered?

Realist- depends. People who aren’t part of the authorities often act like scumbags, too, and then, it’s common that the roles of defenders and critics of the asshole get switched, compared to this case.

Btw, The Oppoponax, I think stuff that gets posted online now might well have a longer life expectancy than stuff that got posted on GeoCities in the 90s, and generally, there isn’t really any reason to believe that any two different things on the Internet will have the same life expectancy.

Raphael writes: “Luke, noone here defended the Drug War.” Amanda wrote on her blog “at least drug paranoia was equal-opportunity and, objectively speaking, based in the reasonable belief that kids shouldn’t do drugs,” so despite the fact this is not a rousing endorsement of the Drug War, I wanted to suggest that war was based on the same principles as attacks on female sexuality. No one needs to defend the Drug War for my thoughts to be relevant.

Raphael writes: “Sure sure, apparently your whole position in this debate is based on the idea that Amanda said that people are in control when [sic] put stuff online.” Hmm. Not really. I am not sure why the observation that prurient obsessions and obsessions with the plant products others choose to consume stem from similar self-righteousness, so how is it relevant that Amanda did or did say it? But thanks for the brave fight against the straw man you set up, Raphael!

Raphael writes: “Kind of funny, given that you’ve complained several times about other people misreading you.” I do not know where this comes from, since this is one of my first posts on this blog. Maybe there are other people in the world named “Luke.” And maybe some of them also post to Pandagon! Hmmm.

Thenceforth, to avoid confusion, I shall call myself Lady Chatterley’s Lover. I am hoping the name is not already taken.

I should add the reason drug paranoia was not equal opportunity, as Amanda suggested, was that racial minorities and poorer kids were targeted in the early 1970s when the whole hysteria got started (and still are).

The victim in this is, in all likelihood, going to get teased at school to the point of finding it a hostile environment. She and her family should sue the officer. Any adult could see the probable outcome of this being disasterous.

I disagree with the poster earlier who said humiliation could sometimes be a useful teaching tool. No, not really.  Defensive and shamed people will run away, but not necessarily learn anything except to avoid getting caught at doing whatever they were shamed for (whether it was a bad thing or not).

What makes me even more angry is what someone at Feministing pointed out--how likely is it that there was a teen there who had been sexually harassed or assaulted already? Pretty likely. Maybe even one of the girls singled out had. But this shitbag of a cop certainly never gave a moment’s thought to the psychological impact of what he was doing. Besides the poor kids he singled out, he probably did damage to others there as well.

There are lots of great ways to talk to kids about being safe online, that don’t involve slut shaming or humiliation of any kind. This asshole probably felt that being a cop meant he had the right to say whatever things he wanted, because he had a gun and could claim he was “just keeping kids out of trouble.”

And given that a guy who posts his picture and his interests and his real life location is *just* as likely to suffer career damage for it, and could well suffer violence or ostracism for it if his opinions are not mainstream, it is insane to make this an issue of teen girls posting sexy pictures when in fact it’s an issue of people posting *anything* under their real name.

Which is another reason why this is bullshit.

All the big stories about people being screwed over because of their MySpace postings were screwed over due to “unprofessional conduct”, whatever the hell that is.  I guess there could be a sexual side of that, if it’s excessive enough.  But a vaguely “sexy” photo, where you’re making googoo eyes at the camera or have a lot of cleavage or are wearing a bathing suit?  Probably not going to ruin your life.  But you might not want people uploading photos of you passed out in your own vomit, whether you’re male or female.

Re the web and how fast things do or don’t disappear—it’s not so much that I think this is something predictable, but A) if you close a myspace account the page is not easily accessible (I know this from experience), and B) it’s unlikely that even if someone saw a picture you uploaded at 16 of yourself lying in bed with tousled hair and sheets barely covering your chest, smoking a cigarette, your life would be ruined over it a decade later.  The famous instances of this sort of thing are examples of a current page someone didn’t think any authority figure would see, not so much the HR department discovering that a 30 year old had a somewhat wild youth.  I mean if you used to be a porn star or did time in prison for a string of high profile robberies?  Maybe.  But they’re not going to find that out from MySpace.

Luke, you might have noticed that there is a poster with the nickname “sure sure” in this thread. The second paragragh in my first post here was directed at that poster, as can be seen from the fact that it started with “Sure sure” (as you yourself quoted). It was not directed at you.

Posting “sexy” or “slutty” pictures of yourself on myspace is extraordinarily stupid for many reasons.  Reasons of violence.  Reasons of privacy.  Employment.  Whether you’re a teen boy or teen girl, it’s really stupid, especially if you’re underage.  Ask Kathy Sierra what she would think of such behavior.

The way I read Marcotte’s post, she isn’t saying that posting lewd photos on MySpace is a good idea. She’s saying it’s understandable that a teenager would mistake MySpace for a safe place to explore sexuality.

To browbeat a teenager for a very common mistake by calling her a slut in front of the student body, and by claiming you sent her link to a predator in prison who will then masturbate to her picture – that’s nothing short of criminal harassment.

He would have done far better to create a demo MySpace page for the purpose of his presentation, so he could show how a potential predator could easily glean personal information off a social networking site even if that predator doesn’t happen to be very tech savvy.

Teenagers are immature, but most of them aren’t stupid: if they see some reflection of themselves and their own activities on the demo page, they might be compelled to make some changes. Humiliation doesn’t work nearly so well as honest education.

If this were my kids I’d treat the cop exactly “as if” he were a real sexual predator behaving that way to my kids.

I’d give my kids the same advice I would otherwise, as well, except I’d be forced to say “If you put pictures of yourself online then police will commit crimes against you”.

Who wants that to be a sane parental response?

Following up on a side note:

Yes, (male) minors under the age of consent are, in fact, required to make child support payments.

Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993) is the precedent-setting case.

From “The Straight Dope”:

In Hermesmann, a 12-year old boy had a sexual relationship with his babysitter. The state said the tweenaged dad was liable for child support even though all agreed the baby resulted from statutory rape. Reviewing cases from Wisconsin and Colorado that imposed child support obligations on underage fathers, the court noted: “We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.” This is a broader conclusion than that reached by the other courts, which had focused on the minor’s actual consent – they said it’s one thing to hold the perpetrator liable for statutory rape based on the legal irrelevance of consent and quite another to excuse the victim from obligations based on actual consent. Hermesmann suggests even a forcible rape of a boy could result in a child support award.

A followup article in the other local paper (this article was also reprinted in the Greeley paper):

http://www.mywindsornow.com/article/20080821/NEWS/85959/1040&ParentProfile=1001

So yes, it appears that most parents and much of the community think that this was unacceptable.  Officer Gay is trying to backpeddle, and it will come down to his word against hundreds of students (and, perhaps, the teachers who were present, but then they have to account for why they didn’t stop the presentation). 

My take on this discussion is that according to other local accounts, the student’s MySpace photos weren’t particularly risque or wild, not underwear or provocative as assumed by some comments above, and _could_ have been published in the school yearbook.  [The student said there was nothing risque or provocative; no one who saw the presentation or her MySpace page, including one reporter, says there was.] Officer Gay also showed and made crude comments about another student’s MySpace photo of her and a female friend hugging (that second student wasn’t at the assembly).  This wasn’t about “don’t put things on the web that will haunt you later”, it was about about a cop misusing power to humiliate 16 year old girls.  His actions would have been just as wrong if the photos _were_ risque or questionable, but the images apparently weren’t.  I hope that he (and the hapless principal) get sued, just so he has to admit or deny under oath what he said, which may be the only jeopardy he faces.

Meanwhile, it had the chilling effect:  even without the photos being risque, not only was there the initial teasing among students at school, even most folks posting here _assumed_ we knew something about the student.  I call out all of us on that one.  Yes, assuming by the way someone is dressed that “she wants it” is horrible, but folks here are making assumptions about her without being there or knowing anything about her or even seeing her website.

“Gay apologized for causing Shaylah any grief, but he said he would never apologize for the way he presents his material because of the seriousness of the crimes”

Just like your average GOP anti-terrorist. If you’re wearing a “goodies” hat you can do no wrong, so why bother with scruples? Why not indulge your kinks?

What’s wrong with a film strip? 
Announcer: “Take for example this girl [shows stock footage of generic girl with black bar over her eyes]… We’ll call her ‘Mary’”.

So this guy is spending a long time looking at all the Myspace pages of teenage girls in a town 50 miles away before coming to give a presentation in which he talks about his contact with imprisoned sexual predators?

Sure wouldn’t be any alarm bells ringing for me if I were a parent or teacher.

sure sure is still confused about women being responsible for men being assholes.

it was hilarious to see him veer off onto the subject of male rape victims paying child support (the devil is always in the details, sure sure) in a bit of target moving.

it was refreshing to read an otherwise thoughtful comment thread on an important topic.

according to other local accounts, the student’s MySpace photos weren’t particularly risque or wild, not underwear or provocative as assumed by some comments above, and _could_ have been published in the school yearbook ... even most folks posting here _assumed_ we knew something about the student—Tomp in Windsor

Yes and no, and I’ve Got Something to Say!  I’ve been reading Amanda’s site since it was Mouse Words and I think the readership here is well aware that girls and women will find themselves sexualized without their consent daily, while they are doing the most mundane things.  Most people who read here are fighting against that.  But then there are the trolls.  And yes, they are gross. 

I’ve been reading your links and it sounds like the students who were singled out for this particular exercise in sexualization-->shaming are still revolted and defensive.  As they should be.  What happened to them was unusual and appalling, disgusting and offensive.  But it had nothing to do with their characters, and everything to do with a culture that has made a fetish of sexualizing everything a girl does, and then tearing her down afterwards, using her sexualized status as an excuse.  If the students can push back enough to create space to see that there was literally nothing they could have done to avoid being targeted, they will be able to see that the truly irresponsible party was Officer Gay.  He may have had the best of intentions but you know what they say about those.

There are some creepy commenters on the local news sites who seem to be pushing an abusive narrative of the event, BTW.

And from there we get into some deeper feminist theory which, this being a raw moment and all, may not be what you or they want to hear.  For a nutshell explanation I’d quote a regular commenter:  This is what patriarchy looks like when it’s happening to you.

I hope everybody comes out of this ok.

Oh, and just a passing note:

I have never, ever heard a feminist say that male rape victims should have to pay child support. In fact my personal take on this is that an adult woman who gets pregnant by raping a teen boy should have her child taken from her on the grounds that she is a *known* rapist, and the rape victim should be permitted to adopt it if he and his parents wish to, or let off the hook entirely and the baby given up for adoption free and clear if he does not want it. But somehow, despite the fact that I don’t think there is any serious feminist support for the belief that male rape victims should pay child support to rapist mothers, I keep seeing guys “challenging” feminists on feminist boards with this issue.

It’d be one thing if NOW had released a statement saying “12-Year-Old Boys: Keep It In Your Pants When Your 38-Year-Old Teacher Hits On You, Or Pay Up”, but to the best of my knowledge, feminism hasn’t said much about this issue, the same way feminism hasn’t said much about child labor in sweatshops. It’s bad, but it’s not really in the purview of feminism per se; you’ll hear more about it from intersectionalists who are heavily into feminism *and* labor, or feminism *and* children’s rights, or that kind of thing, not mainstream feminism itself. Likewise you would be more likely to hear about the issue of male rape victims and child support from intersectionalists who talk about feminism *and* abuses of men by patriarchy, except there aren’t any because the supposed allies of “men” spend all their time whining about feminists.

It’s really too bad there’s no complementary movement for men that works *together* with feminism to end the ways that patriarchy hurts men too, instead of a movement that spends 95% of its time opposing feminism and ranting against feminism for issues that feminism either didn’t create, actively fights against, or sincerely has little business talking about. For instance, a real men’s movement might address the fact that 90% of murderers and 80% of all murder victims are male, making murder a men’s issue and primarily an internal man-on-man issue with very little to do with women (feminists are already addressing the issue of the 20% of murders that are against women, and occasionally discuss the 10% of murderers that are women, but when you have numbers like 90% and 80%, it’s really frickin’ irresponsible for supposed Men’s Rights Advocates to spend all their time talking about things like male rape victims of women and the mythical woman who pokes holes in guys’ condoms so she can stick them with child support for life. Your people are *dying* and all you can talk about is how you’re supposedly discrimated against because your own kind make sitcoms where you are portrayed as fat and loutish.)