quote:State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.
Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.
She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.
Police said they are trying to identify all the people who receive photos from the girl.
I really don't know what to say. The mind boggles.
Ok, some exposition from the most positive point of view: digital imaging and networking technology has inverted our notions of public and private. No more leering eyes at Eckerd's opens up a way for kids (of all ages ) to mess around -- more fun than their patented 6-hour phone calls, yet safer than any curriculum-endorsed "safe sex." Young men & women can find an appreciative audience of their scarily developing bodies that's sorely lacking in the locker room or bitchy clique.
Negatives: ok typed a bit and I can't even pretend to be unbiased. So: Thinking of minors as sexual beings is wrong. (Which is why absolutely no porn sites advertise their 18-year-olds as the youngest looking.) Girls open themselves to stalking. (Ditto if they walk the same route to school every day in a miniskirt.) Pornography degrades public morality. (Free speech isn't meant to cover stuff you approve of.) Unknown distribution could injure reputations beyond the consentee. (If you think a teen is going to ask permission first, or cares...)
A fair counterpoint I will be willing to discuss in more detail if asked, but not in the opening post: how do you know there is not abuse by an elder going on in the background?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think playing doctor with a webcam is (necessarily, on its own) a cause for therapy, but your point about prosecution is more important. Any time police manpower is wasted on investigating teen girls being teen girls (or mere possession of jpegs which may not even be real, or double speed traps...) instead of catching child molestors, I think we should be in an uproar. We had a "difficult" time last week proving that porn was harmful to society, but I'll bet everyone here knows at least one person whose life was irreparably harmed by childhood abuse.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
They don't want to seem like they're condoning it by letting it slide. They don't want child pornographers to think this constitutes a loophole. They want to discourage other underage amateur photographers from doing the same thing.
I would not charge her with child abuse or possession of child pornography since the pictures are of herself and I would think that she could do whatever she wanted as long as she never showed them to anybody. If they must charge her with someething I'd stick with dissemination of child pornography since she did, but I would stress counseling over punishment and I wouldn't mark her as a sex offender for life.
Any of the adults who possess her pictures could and should be charged with possession and/or dissemination of child pornography if they knew before police informed them that the girl was underage.
It's an interesting situation, though. I was dating and sexually active with my girlfriend in high school when we were both underage. Once for fun we took playful semi-nude pictures of each other. It's now 23 years later, and we've still together. Would I be charged with possession of child pornography if I hadn't destroyed them? Should I be?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm sure there's lots of people out there who would be glad to hear your plan for ending it based solely on more manpower. The "Why aren't you catching murderers, rapists, and child molestors" anti-police canard is tiresome.
A lot of those kids who are abused are abused to make kiddy-porn, so in general the resources there are well-spent. In pursuing the general goal of stopping people from abusing children, taking pictures of it, and making money off it they found this web site and prosecuted.
posted
Okay, these charges are just plain wrong...
-You can't sexually abuse yourself. That inconsistent with the whole idea of sexual abuse. -You have a right to have pictures of yourself, even if they are pornographic pictures. -You have a right to show those pictures to whoever you want. They are YOUR pictures of YOU and you can do what you want with them. -The people you give your pictures to have a right to keep them, since you gave them freely and the pictures are of you.
Nobody has been abused here - she did not abuse herself. So where's the crime? If it's a matter of public morality, then free speech applies. Minors have free speech rights just as much as adults do.
I'm not sure what the law says on the matter, but illegal child porn should at least be defined in a way that does not include situations like this. If it's your choice to do it to yourself, it's not abuse of anyone.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, there's a fairly major loophole here for ACTUAL child pornographers, though.
It must be argued that children simply can't be trusted to make the kind of voluntary choice that would permit them to distribute naked pictures of themselves. Otherwise, any child pornographer could say that he merely ASKED the girl to pose naked, and that she then asked him to take a look at some of the pictures with her later. And then, at her request, he showed her how to put them online.
Since most child pornography generally IS loosely "consensual," if you ignore issues of leverage and the like, creating a loophole for consensual child porn would be a nightmare.
Now, as has been pointed out, I don't think you can argue that she abused herself; I expect that charge to fizzle out pretty quickly. Distribution of child porn, though, should stick.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's murky. I don't necessarily think prosecution is the answer though.
Chris - the situation you expressed - well no, you shouldn't be charged.
Tres - I don't think it's that simple. As a purely legal point, minors don't have that right. (I think... at least, they don't in Australia).
To go back to Chris's example - what if you ( purely hypothetical - and I'm only using this because you used it first. Please tell me if you think I'm out of line.) showed those pictures to other people outside your marriage? What if those people were aroused by those pictures, then went looking for others, found some child pornography and became used to that?
I guess the thing is about child porn is the prohibition isn't solely about the harm to the person being photographed - but rather the harm that is caused by normalising the sexualisation of children.
And if the photos of the 15 year old are normalising this sexualisation - may maybe one day encourage a sicko (I can't think of a better word, sorry) to take his thoughts to reality -well, maybe they do need to be repressed.
posted
Children can make choices though - they do it all the time. Society can't just decide it don't trust them to make choices, and then argue their choices aren't really choices. That's just ignoring reality in order to violate the rights of minors.
I think this case proves that children can make the choice to do this sort of thing, since she obviously did choose to do it if she is being arrested for it.
And if it isn't child abuse, you can't call it illegal child porn because the reason child porn gets away with being illegal is because people claim it is always child abuse. If it is not child abuse, it becomes a simple matter of free speech.
And as for loopholes, yes, it does create a loophole. But the only thing that illustrates is that the argument for banning all child pornography is built on shaky foundations. It assumes abuse, when it is possible that the child has willingly chosen to do it. This case is, essentially, the counterexample.
And you can't take away rights and send seemingly innocent children to jail just to avoid having loopholes.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some child pronographers are probably out to make a profit, certainly. Some just want pictures of kids in sexual situations. Since minors cannot give informed consent to pose for these pictures, they are evidence of a crime, and distribution and possession of them is also a crime.
"She took them voluntarily and gave them to me" is such a massive loophole that even if ignoring it violates her perceived civil rights, it cannot be allowed. In my opinion when she's 18 she can take more pics and distribute them all she wants to, but anything she takes right now had better stay on her computer.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
the whole reason this stuff is illegal is that minors are too young to make these choices with personal consent.
If that's the case, how can she, as a minor, possibly be competent to stand trial? If she's competent to stand trial, isn't she definitionally competent to make the choices?
I can see going after someone on this, but not the girl herself...
edit: I mean, they seem to be inclined to try her as an adult... and if she's an adult, what becomes of the charge that she's distributing child porn? that certainly seems to be bending the law to her distinct disadvantage.
posted
What I would argue for is a breakdown of the sex offender status, with different levels of penalty for different situations. Right now if she gets convicted she'll be labeled for life, with the same status as some old guy molesting kids, and I don't think that's right.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Children can also choose to enter into a legal contract if they want, and no one could argue that they didn't make the choice. But it's still not legally binding.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who sees a parallel to a kid who find their parents gun and inflicts harm on themselves with it? I think the parents should be held culpable. This probably sounds like an even worse nightmare, but it is possible to have computers in a public area where something like this would be noticed. I know to many of you who are young and need your "privacy" on line I must sound like a monster. But our computer is in a family area and I couldn't read this thread until my daughter left for school.
But I generally agree that the girl needs counseling at this point. Though any further strikes and minor or not, she should get a record. In a few years she will be old enough to work in daycare or whatever.
Keep in mind that a variety of sexual acts, whatever that means, was depicted before saying "I've done something not so different myself".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the thing is about child porn is the prohibition isn't solely about the harm to the person being photographed - but rather the harm that is caused by normalising the sexualisation of children.
Banning kinds of free speech because it might promote the normalization of immoral behavior is not an acceptable justification for banning it. You might just as well ban people from saying racist stuff.
quote:the whole reason this stuff is illegal is that minors are too young to make these choices with personal consent.
If that's the case, how can she, as a minor, possibly be competent to stand trial? If she's competent to stand trial, isn't she definitionally competent to make the choices?
This is what I'm talking about.
This case PROVES that minors CAN make these choices, because either she chose to do it to herself, or someone forced her to do it. But the only person that could have forced her to do it was herself. So, no matter how you look at it, she was the one who chose to do it, and hence she must have had that capacity.
posted
I pretty much agree with Chris on this one. I think it's absurd to charge the girl with anything, but I think adults who have the images and know they are of a child are fair game.
(POINT OF LAW: if anybody knows . . . if you have porn from a site that says all of their models are over eighteen, and it turns out that one or more are not, can you be charged with possession of child pornography? I think you probably can, since it doesn't let you off the hook in statutory rape cases. If so, is this right? Should you be able to be guilty of a felony without even knowing that you did it?)
Back to the point. Certainly it can be argued that if the adults knew she was a minor, they probably asked for or encouraged her to send/post the pictures, and there's the undue leverage that makes children legally unable to give consent.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely should be going after these guys in the chat rooms...thanks, Ic, for pointing out the leverage they represent.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly it can be argued that if the adults knew she was a minor, they probably asked for or encouraged her to send/post the pictures, and there's the undue leverage that makes children legally unable to give consent.
Are you arguing that somehow suggestions from a chatroom forced her to do this?
If I say something in a chatroom and some minor does something wrong as a result, are you saying I'm responsible for what he or she did, just because I made a suggestion in a chatroom? I think that's very unfair. I've heard plenty of casual, innocent suggestions in Hatrack Chat that could result in big trouble if we were to follow that sort of rule.
Regardless of what the law may say on the capacity of minors to decide to do things for themselves, I think it's clear that this act was in fact the girl's choice, and that trying to shift blame on and punish other people would be unfair to them.
quote:See, I guess this is where we differ. We do. Australia doesn't have free speech like America has.
Uh-oh. Do you realize that that's ground for us to invade and bring "democracy" to you all?
posted
A four-year-old can choose to fire a gun, too. Doesn't mean it's an informed choice, or that the four-year old has any concept of the results or responsibilities from making that choice. I have to admit I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are the ages of consent arbitrary? Sure. Are they inconsistent? Definitely. Should they be changed? Up for dispute. But saying that because she can make a choice she should be immune to the penalities of that choice?
Put it this way. Possession of pictures of explicit underage nudity is illegal. Even if it can be argued that she can take such pictures of herself (and it can), she was breaking that law by distributing them. That's the part I think she should be charged with.
Should it be left alone, I predict a blooming business in minors who want spending money and a lot of happy pedophiles.
[ April 21, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I agree completely. There is already a growing problem with 18+ year olds stripping and more (either online or at clubs) for money to go through high school / college.
Do we as a society really want to extend that 'option' (in quotation marks because even if it starts that way, it doesn't end that way) to younger kids?
quote:If I say something in a chatroom and some minor does something wrong as a result, are you saying I'm responsible for what he or she did, just because I made a suggestion in a chatroom? I think that's very unfair. I've heard plenty of casual, innocent suggestions in Hatrack Chat that could result in big trouble if we were to follow that sort of rule.
If she sent somebody a link, then they did a lot more than make a casual, tongue-in-cheek suggestion. If they followed up on it and downloaded the pictures, then they weren't being casual or tongue-in-cheek at all.
Let's get down to the dirty bottom. What about sex with minors? (I know we brushed against this topic once before. As I recall, you favored case-specific determination of the age of consent, rather than a specific number.) Is there any age, in your personal beliefs, that would intrinsically provide evidence to you that a minor was not capable of giving consent? A point where you say "I don't care how brilliant or mature she is . . . she's six, and there's no way sex with her is not rape"?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, a four-year-old CAN choose to fire a gun, which is why the law should not deny this capacity as it does. It tries to claim a choice must be informed to be a choice, which is not the case (as this example among others illustrates).
The bottom line is this: If someone chooses to take pictures of themself, it is not sexual abuse. If this means the porn industry can profit from choices minors make for themselves, so be it. They have that right. It's not fair to the porn industry to pretend they are forcing things upon minors when the minors are actually making decisions. And thus it's not fair to the porn industry to accuse them of sexual abuse in cases where the people they are supposedly abusing are choosing to do it themselves. And most of all, it's not fair to minors to assume they can't make choices.
Protecting children is a good motivation, but it's not sufficient reason to ignore reality when making laws. The law shouldn't deny the fact that minors make choices any more than it should deny the laws of physics.
Now, in this case, an innocent girl might have her life screwed up because of an anomolie created by laws that deny reality. She can't legally choose to do what she did, but there's noone else around to pass the blame to, so we have to conclude that she forced it upon herself - that she abused herself. I think that's just outrageously unfair.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I think your idea is bad because of what might happen to innocent parents. I was actually a pretty good kid, but I got away with a lot of stuff and I could have gotten away with a lot more had I desired to. Parents cannot keep an eye on their children all the time, and by the time the children are in high school they should certainly not be expected to. Had I wanted to take pictures of myself at 15, it would not have been that hard. Save allowance and/or dip into savings for a digital camera (or otherwise obtain the use of one), go into my room, take pictures. Post on computer in basement, computer at school, computer at Internet cafe, etc. It would not have been my parents' fault had I done something like that. A 15 year old may be naive and inexperienced, but they are as smart as they will ever be.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's get down to the dirty bottom. What about sex with minors? (I know we brushed against this topic once before. As I recall, you favored case-specific determination of the age of consent, rather than a specific number.) Is there any age, in your personal beliefs, that would intrinsically provide evidence to you that a minor was not capable of giving consent? A point where you say "I don't care how brilliant or mature she is . . . she's six, and there's no way sex with her is not rape"?
No, I don't think there is any such age. As I said above, to do so would be to both deny the reality that choices are in fact being made, and violate the rights of minors (rights that the law often passes over lightly, I might add.)
I'd point to the example of two minors having sex without anyone else knowing. If neither of these have chosen to have sex, and nobody is there forcing them to have sex, how did it happen? I think it's clear that they must have chosen to do it themselves, and therefore it must be possible for minors to make such choices, and therefore that it is false to assume all sex with minors is forced upon them, and therefore that it is false to assume all sex with minors is rape (because rape is forced sex.)
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, again, I just see a situation where charging *her* is specifically using her age against her when it's convenient to so they can get a conviction. they are emphatically NOT protecting the victim here... these are people out to hurt someone and using the laws of the state as an excuse to do it.
What the hell happened to "to PROTECT and to serve..."?
If she's adult enough to be charged with a crime, how can she not be adult enough to consent? and if she's adult enough to consent, then where is the crime?
The whole issue of child sexuality is "they aren't old enough to understand what they are doing." If that's the case, if a 15 yr old is incapable of understanding sexuality enough to give free consent to a sex act, how can a 15 yr old understand sexuality enough to commit a sex crime?
Can anyone explain this particular double standard? I don't like double-standards as a rule, but when the double standard is used to harass and label a minor for life as a sex offender I have a real problem with this because it was done to me.
Dammit people! I was sexually abused as a child and when I told my parents about it they spanked me with a belt and told me never to do such evil horrible things again. How is arresting this girl any different? If 15 is too young, if what she did is abusing a child, then the state is doing to her what my parents did to me, and I think that is horrific.
Someone prove me wrong, as I am obviously *way* personalizing this.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xaposert, the problem I'm having here is that you seem to refuse to acknowledge the difference between a choice and an informed choice. As long as that remains the case, arguing the point seems useless.
It's also irrelevant to my last post. The choice that you're arguing so strenuously that she was capable of, as proved by the fact that she did it, was to commit an illegal act. Why shouldn't she be called to account for it? Please note that I called for counseling, not conviction.
[ April 21, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By all means get her to a counselor, but I object to the charge...
and, well, the damage has been done. She's been arrested and humiliated. I can't imagine what this is doing to her self-worth. it feels horrible that all I can do is sit here in outrage...
edit: thanks, Joe. This is all very present for me because I'm dealing with it in therapy right now, for the first time. Wounds are a little raw from being re-opened, as if you couldn't tell.
quote:No, I don't think there is any such age. As I said above, to do so would be to both deny the reality that choices are in fact being made, and violate the rights of minors (rights that the law often passes over lightly, I might add.)
So, Tres, are you arguing that it would be possible for a pre-verbal child--say a 6 month old--to engage in consentual sex with an adult?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the deal? Break it down from this POV. She had child porn and distributed it.
Question one: Did she have child porn in her possession?
Point one: There were pornographic pictures of a child.
Point two: She had them.
So the answer to question one is YES.
Question two: Did she distribute it?
Point: She gave the pornographic pictures of a child to people.
So the answer to question two is YES.
YES she had child porn and YES she passed it around. I don't really see how it matters that the pictures were of HER. Is there any law involving child porn that says you can't have it or distribute it unless they are you?
Now, I would argue that she didn't abuse herself; I feel like that's kind of dumb. But I agree with the other two charges.
And if she's old enough to make the decision to take the pictures and distribute them (meaning, if she's tried as an adult) then she was old enough to learn about the laws involving it before she did something so stupid. But the question is, should she be tried as an adult? I'm not really sure.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
answer my questions, then, please. If 15 is too young to consent to sex, then how can we charge a 15 yr old with a sex crime?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Distribution and possession of child pornography are not the same type of charges as statutory rape.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to point out that we don't know, at this point, if the people she sent these pictures to represented themselves as adults wanting to know, or as potential suitors from across town. We don't know if they are adults or minors. We don't know if she represented herself as an adult or minor, either. All of those things would seem to have some bearing on the case, though I can't say exactly what yet...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure, TAK. I was typing that when you posted. I'll have to think about whether age of consent for sex should be the same as the age of consent for everything else.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I submit that they are *exactly* the same type of charge as statutory rape. I'll grant that there is a wider element to child pornography, but preventing the exploitation of the child in the picture is, and should be, the primary focus of the law.
Dag, I see what you are saying, but the law exists to protect the victims and they are completely sacrificing that in this case. There is a word for emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit: "hypocrisy" (not trying to call you a hypocrite... sorry if it comes off that way... still very angry)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with porter on the age of consent thing, when it comes to victimizing somebody. But I think it's absurd to charge this girl with anything. What she did doesn't bare much resemblence to rape. And minors don't get charged with statutory rape when they sleep with other minors of the same age. That age difference leading to psychological power thing is not present. I don't think she can victimize herself, in the legal sense. She can possibly be charged on the distribution, but I simply don't think punishment is an appropriate way to deal with her at all. Nor do I think she should be labelled as a convicted sex offender. I think she should receive court-ordered counseling, though.
I think that in general, you and I agree on all points, Jim-Me, which in itself is interesting.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xaposert, the problem I'm having here is that you seem to refuse to acknowledge the difference between a choice and an informed choice. As long as that remains the case, arguing the point seems useless.
I admit the different between the two. It's just that whether a choice is informed or not does not matter, at least in regards to the question of whether rape has occurred. It is not rape or sexual abuse to have sex with an adult who doesn't understand the consequences of sex is it?
quote:The choice that you're arguing so strenuously that she was capable of, as proved by the fact that she did it, was to commit an illegal act. Why shouldn't she be called to account for it? Please note that I called for counseling, not conviction.
Because the reason the act was made illegal in the first place hinges on the assumption that minors can't make the choice she did. If they can make such a choice, then the act is not necessarily abuse, and should not be illegal.
Sure, she should be accounted for it because the law is the law, but the law should be changed for the future.
Also, why do you argue for counseling not conviction? If you really think she did the crime, shouldn't she suffer the penalties ascribed by the law for that crime?
quote:So, Tres, are you arguing that it would be possible for a pre-verbal child--say a 6 month old--to engage in consentual sex with an adult?
Well, I'm not sure a pre-verbal, 6-month-old child is physically capable of consenting to anything.
Also, I might add that there is a difference between voluntarily choosing to do something (as this girl did) and being pressured into choosing something. I'd be doubtful of whether a very young child would want ever to do such a thing, without being pressured into it by the adult (similar to how a boss might pressure an employee into sex in a very subtle fashion - which would be abuse even if she agrees under the pressure).
posted
Jim, the law is designed to protect all victims - I think the aggregate effect needs to be considered as well. That's why I think the porn charges are legitimate, not the abuse charges.
However, someone needs to investigate this girl's life pretty closely. I'd bet there's sexual abuse there somewhere.
posted
Sadly, Dag, I would not take that as a given at all. I find that many, of not most, teenagers in mainstream American society today are sexually active, and this kind of sexual experimentation is quite typical.
(Not that it's sad if she was not molested, but that it's sad that this level of promiscuity or pretty normal for a fifteen year old . . . GAH!)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we know she is being abandoned? ANd yes, she is being punished, but so should anybody that sends kiddie porn to others. Is it not possible to punish for the crime *AND* help with the prolem?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though the odds appear to not be too bad for Dag's case... 1 in 3 women is what I keep hearing. Who knows if that's true (lies, damned lies, and statistics) but even if it's triple the real number, it's still staggering.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I'm not sure a pre-verbal, 6-month-old child is physically capable of consenting to anything.
So, then, your answer to Icarus's question
quote:Is there any age, in your personal beliefs, that would intrinsically provide evidence to you that a minor was not capable of giving consent?
isn't
quote:No, I don't think there is any such age
Do you consider being mentally capable of giving consent to be the same as being verbally able to give consent? If that same 6 month old were unusually advanced, and had the verbal skills of, say, a 2 year old, could they give consent to having sex with an adult?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
have you been arrested? I have. It was disturbing enough as an adult... strip searched... unable to even use the bathroom without someone watching me...
and that was for a 3 yr old parking ticket that I had simply forgotten-- no danger to anyone.
I'm sorry... maybe the police there have a really nice way of arresting people in special situations, but my guess is the officers went in there to get "a sex offender, charged with distributing child porn" and probably weren't very warm and fuzzy with her.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) to mess around -- more fun than their patented 6-hour phone calls, yet safer than any curriculum-endorsed "safe sex." Young men & women can find an appreciative audience of their scarily developing bodies that's sorely lacking in the locker room or bitchy clique.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) like that.
