As the proverb says..
No good deed goes unpunished.
US woman cuffed for 'booking strippers for 16th birthday bash'
A New York woman is in a spot of bother after allegedly arranging for strippers to liven up a young man's 16th birthday bash. The District Attorney said charges of endangering the welfare of a child had been laid against Judy Viger, 33, of Gansevoort, north of Albany, in connection with allegations that she had hired two …
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 06:45 GMT JaitcH
This is called ...
moral turpitude and is a United States legal concept in the that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals". It appears in U.S. immigration law from the nineteenth century. In other common law jurisdictions it is dated or obsolete.
I wonder where murdering your own citizens or innocent children overseas with drones fits in this?
Better charge Obamarama, Bush and the CIA.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 12:40 GMT Zaphod.Beeblebrox
Re: Give an automatic rifle
First, nobody is giving any 16 year old boys automatic rifles. Those are tightly controlled by the BATFE and monstrously expensive (on the order of $15,000 or more). I suspect you mean a semi-automatic rifle, which fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger and does not require you to manipulate the firearm between shots.
Second, given that this is NY I imagine there would be just as much issue with her giving him a semi-automatic rifle and a ton of ammunition as there was for hiring strippers. NY just passed some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the US, and even before that ti was illegal for a dealer to sell to a minor so it wouldn't surprise me if they had added more age restrictions.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 17:12 GMT Steve Evans
Re: Give an automatic rifle
"Young men can join the air force and fly combat missions where they get to drop bombs on people while they're still considered too young to drink."
I think that has more to do with the oddly high (from the British point of view) drinking age in the US than an oddly low "you can drop bombs on people" age.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 17:34 GMT Tom 13
Give an automatic rifle and
No, as the recipient was not of age that would be prohibited by the Firearms Act of 1934 also. Owning automatic weapons in the US is a highly regulated thing. (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/1999/fully-automatic-firearms.aspx)
But I suppose we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your one minute hate.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 07:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
According to other reports some of the party-goers were 13 year olds - and the age of consent in that jurisdiction is apparently 17. Which, on a rough calculation, makes his mother a participant in possible under-age sex when she was his age - if she lived in that jurisdiction then.
The attempts of some authorities to deny that human sexuality starts rearing its head before an arbitrary mid/late teen age is misguided. If they are considered old enough to hunt with guns, drive cars, etc responsibly - then appreciating the sight of the naked human body is a reasonable preparation for the real world.
Presumably the age threshold in the UK to see a stripper would be 18. However more intimate behaviour is legal from 16 - unless they want to take pictures of their same-age partner, which is only allowed if they are married. I doubt if sanity will prevail in my lifetime.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 09:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
I am not sure what the legal age to have a stripper at your home would be in the UK, I would hope at most 16...
As long as they don't look at any pictures they take! :-D
There is unfortunately a real mess with laws regarding porn in this country...
Until they acknowledge that 16 year olds are NOT minors, and are adults who should have the same rights as anyone who is 18 this country will be punishing people who should be innocent...
Seriously, you can have sex at 16, but you can't look at porn? seriously which one is going to cause more problems?
And seriously if you've not seen a bit of porn, you'll make a right mess of your first time, and ruin it for the girl...
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:13 GMT sabroni
if you've not seen a bit of porn, you'll make a right mess of your first time
Basing your sexual technique on porn is like taking tips on driving from James Bond. IMHO good sex is nothing like you see in the vast majority of porn, I'm certainly not interested in having a load of other men involved.
And the first time is supposed to be a bit of a mess!
-
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 15:25 GMT sisk
more detailed reports suggest it was a woman in a bikini singing happy birthday.
Then what's the issue? Surely the idio....er, authorities can't be dragging a woman up on charges of exposing kids to a sight that they could see by popping down to the nearest pool. The moral police are brainless, but not THAT freaking brainless.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 17:42 GMT Tom 13
'Age of consent' doesn't mean what you think it means.
It means that if you are over 21 that's how old the other participant needs to be before you can't be arrested for engaging in such behavior. If you are between 16 and 21 it gets murky and you might or might not run afoul of the law.
Also, there are multiple kinds of "strippers" in the US. There were a couple of entertainment companies that routinely sent "stripper" onto college campus when I was there. What it meant in that context was a close dance in which the stripper removed clothing until they were only in a swim suit. Presumably it wasn't that kind of stripper given she was arrested.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 14:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re - Dana W
I will be down-thumbed I know, but I had never seen breasts (except in pictures, and maybe my mother's) when I was 16. Just a fact.
Moreover, if someone had arranged a boob show like that, eg for my 16th birthday, I would have been extremely upset, as I would have seen it as a form of piss-taking, mockery - like "Look at what you can't have", since any girl I met around that time told me to go to hell - and was hardly likely to show me their tits. Teenage girls are prissy bitches.
YMMV, but in later years many other guys (unless they looked like Orlando Bloom or similar) told me a similar story, as by that time they were no longer bragging and believing themselves that they were God's Gift to Girls.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 07:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
I would not be so sure
Quite a few UK cases where the parent was cuffed for similar activities come to mind. The most recent (there is a reference on the beeb, just cannot be bothered to find it) was where the dad took his son kerb-crawling as a present for his 16th year birthday . He got nailed under _BOTH_ kerb crawling and child protection legislation.
So, frankly, in the UK she would have ended up dealing with the community services parasites and possibly court as well. In order to for her to attain mother of the year you would have had to go somewhere more civilized - to continental Europe.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 08:40 GMT Sooty
Re: I would not be so sure
I'm not so sure about that. The case you list of child protection, would probably have been due to involving a child in a criminal activity, ie the kerb crawling. Not something relating directly to trying to get him laid.
sex is legal at 16 in the UK, so I'm pretty sure he could have arranged it in other ways that wouldn't have caused problems. I can't see why hiring some strippers should cause any issues if everyone there was 16+
If they weren't all 16+ though, the person who arranged it would probably be banged up and on the sex offenders register before their feet hit the ground.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I would not be so sure
" I can't see why hiring some strippers should cause any issues if everyone there was 16+"
A stripper for an under-18 would be an offence along the lines of "corrupting a minor" - the same as letting them watch a similar "18" video.
However having sex, and presumably stripping, with a 16-17 would not be an offence - unless it was construed that an older partner was in a position of power or was "paying" in some way.
The English law is a mess. The Sexual Offences Act of 2003 was supposed to tidy up various old laws. However the committee doing the draft seemed to have a definite agenda that wanted thresholds for prosecution of men reduced to ridiculous levels. The police wanted "intent" removed as "it is difficult to prove". It also ended up with a couple having sex in public NOT being a "sexual offence". However a male being naked potentially was a sexual offence - even if there was no-one present to see him.
Part of the influential evidence provided by one committee member was that a survey showed women were afraid to go out at night. They didn't explain that the survey was conducted in Leeds at the height of the "Yorkshire Ripper" hunt.
The committee took "best practice" as the USA, who had an even higher teen pregnancy rate - and ignored the success stories from Europe and Scandinavian countries with good education and liberal policies.
Before 2003 under-16 and under-18 were regarded in England as separate age ranges - with more latitude allowed in the latter. The SOA 2003 made it a blanket under-18 range - with the same rules as previously used for under-16. They then had to include a let-out clause for legally married couples to have pictures of their under-18 spouse.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I would not be so sure
"Or take him on a trip to amsterdam/germany for the weekend...."
The French film "Le Souffle Au Coeur" (1971) was a rite of passage story of a boy in 1954. On his 15th birthday his older brothers take him along to the local brothel as a present. The director was Louis Malle and presumably that event has some basis in French culture of the time. Set in the era of the early Indo-China (Vietnam) War it satirises several taboo subjects - including an early tilt at lecherous Catholic priests teaching the school boys. NSFW?
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 15:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I would not be so sure
Nothing to do with french culture, brothels were almost universal because nice girls didn't put out. The Superfreakonomics authors make a reasonable case (in an otherwise middling book) that the worst thing to happen to prositution was the 1960's - why would you pay for a service you could now get for free?
-
Saturday 23rd February 2013 13:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I would not be so sure
"The Superfreakonomics authors make a reasonable case (in an otherwise middling book) that the worst thing to happen to prositution was the 1960's - why would you pay for a service you could now get for free?"
The 1960s were somewhat over-hyped as a "free love" era for most people in the UK. In 1965 we did a survey of our VIth Form (17-19 year old boys). One was in a regular full relationship; two had lost their virginity in a one-off with the same girl at a pub on the same night. The remaining twenty plus either didn't have girlfriends or were planning for the long haul of engagement and marriage after university. The peak of sexual experience was probably when they were 12/13 - when other boys, or possibly girl cousins, were testing their rising hormones.
Even in the 1970s most girls had still inherited the social norms about how long a period of waiting separated each step of sexual familiarity. One possible slight change by the women was that being engaged might be considered sufficient security - rather than waiting until the wedding night.
In the 1980s it became apparent that more of the local teenage girls had lost their virginity, and earlier, than boys. It transpired that a few boys were considered by the girls to be highly desirable. There was a certain reinforcement - once a boy was a centre of attraction then a lot more girls wanted the status of being with him. These boys then played their ace card by saying that either a girl went to bed with him - or he wouldn't see her again. The threatened loss of status amongst the other girls was a strong motivator. The majority of the boys were ignored by the girls.
-
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 12:07 GMT JohnG
Re: I would not be so sure
"...you would have had to go somewhere more civilized - to continental Europe."
Like this story of a 14 year old boy who stole and sold his Mum's jewellery so that he and his mate could go on a binge and visit a brothel:
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20121009-45439.html
Notice it is the theft that is the big issue here, not that a pair of 14 year old boys visited a brothel.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 07:10 GMT Sil
too small to win
Whereas defrauding the American people of trillions of dollars by selling crappy bundled mortgage debt to customers then shortselling them does warrant neither investigation nor charges against bank execs too big to fail, it's perfectly ok to waste tax money on months of investigation for poor old teenagers who had probably endangered themselves for years on youporn & sexting.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 07:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
not just one child
the statement linked in the talks about " kids less than 16 were present"
reads like some younger teenagers were there and that their parents complained. The picture of the alledged incident puts the entertainment as rather more racey than a British pub stripper.
Though if jury convicts perhaps a dressing down and several weeks of litter collection is more appropriate rather than a custodial.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: not just one child
Valid points. I stand corrected if those are the facts of the case and- if it is - then I am prepared to denounce the authorities as being possessed of puritanical zeal.
1) I didn't know there were those sort of pubs in the UK, and I guess such activities don't occur in the Saloon.
2) I was going by a single picture that appears in various online news articles which had a performer and a punter in a 69 position and which may of course not have been of the event in question.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 07:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
The US is a very puritanical country
Where else would you get laws that would put a man on the sex offenders register for life for having a pee in public yet those same laws exclude women from the charges.
Cross a state line and get cuffed for something that is legal in your state - Yep
Cross a county line and get cuffed ... - Yep
Cross a city line and get cuffed ... Yep
Step outside your home without wearing a side-arm in some places and you could get cuffed.
Pah!
Land of the free ? Yeah right on Man, pass me that joint.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The US is a very puritanical country
If a woman sees a man taking a pee and complains then that is a level 3 felony. Jail time, loss of the right to vote and spending the rest of your life on the sex offenders register all for taking a piss in public.
Only applies to some states though.
When some american friends of mine saw their first frenchman standing by the side of his truck having a pee they were truly shocked by such deviant behavior.
In some communities, people won't speak to you if you don't attend church.
A truly magical, wonderful country populated by <redacted>
(I spent 10 years living in New England, Texas, Georgia and Oregon)
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The US is a very puritanical country ( @ AC 09:59)
Then provide a link to the states legislation.
In order for me to prove my point I would have to provide a link to every piece of every states legislation to show that it doesn't contain a "piss in public and you are a sex offender for life" clause.
You, on the other hand, only have to provide a single link to a single states legislation that has the "piss in public" clause (or a clause that would have the same effect).
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 18:59 GMT Swarthy
Re: The US is a very puritanical country ( @ AC 09:59)
Here's Virginia's requirements.
If I am reading it correctly (no guarantee of that) if you take a wiz outside and a minor sees it, then you are on the sex offenders list. I believe GA is also the same.
Basically in those two states, at a minimum, anything that would be a minor sex offense (e.g. public indecency) is a dangerous sex offense if a minor is involved.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 20:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The US is a very puritanical country ( @ AC 13:09)
If more proof was needed as to how completely wrong you are, here's California's list:
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/registration/offenses.htm
Lots of really bad stuff, but Indecent Exposure is on there too.
Also apparently you can get on the list for "annoying" a child. - wat?
-
Saturday 23rd February 2013 00:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The US is a very puritanical country ( @ AC 13:09)
The Californian penal code that deals with Indecent Exposure states the following:
Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:
1.Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby;
Furthermore the Californian State Supreme Court defined a lewd act as:
The touching of the genitals, buttocks or female breast for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, annoyance, or offense.
Taking a piss in public will not get you on the register.
The legal definition of annoy is:
1. The defendant engaged in conduct directed at a child;
2. A normal person, without hesitation, would have been disturbed, irritated, offended, or injured by the defendant's conduct;
3. The defendant's conduct was motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in the child;
AND
4. The child was under the age of 18 years at the time of the conduct.
Unfortunately I am unable to access the Virginia State link at the moment.
Just because a State lists indecent exposure as something that will get you on the list does not mean that having a piss in public will.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 13:56 GMT Swarthy
Re: The US is a very puritanical country ( @ AC 00:12)
In addition to the legal frameworks already linked to, I have anecdotal evidence, but I forbore from mentioning it as it is anecdotal. An acquaintance of my wife during her time in college was arrested for wizzing in public (alley beside the bar he had gotten tanked at) and getting placed on the register in GA.
This does not count as solid evidence as there may be more to the story than what I know, but it should count for something.
-
Monday 25th February 2013 16:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The US is a very puritanical country ( @ AC 00:12)
Your Virginia link doesn't work, here is one that does: http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov/sor/statutes.html
The relevant entry is: Third misdemeanor sexual offense as set forth in 18.2-67.5:1
Note that it has to be your third offense and each offense has to occur on a different day. Also the offense is defined as:
Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure ...
So taking a piss will not get you on the register in Virginia.
As to your Georgia anecdote, I have searched and can not find anything that would put somebody having a piss on the register. If you want to look yourself, here is a starting point: http://libguides.law.gsu.edu/content.php?pid=122604&sid=1053901
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 08:57 GMT Owain 1
Probably ill advised
The link in the article points to the DA's office (or something) and there's more detail there. I quote
" they had sufficient evidence to charge at least 5 counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child relative to the acts performed on the children by the dancers all at the alleged direction, arrangement, organization and supervision by and of Ms. Viger. As difficult as it may be for us to have to weigh in on these kinds of cases, certainly exposing the unsuspecting children to this sort of "entertainment" goes beyond the pale when it comes to what is appropriate for 14, 15 and 16 year old child. It is important to remember that it is the other kids and their parents who came forward and who initiated the investigation. The police correctly followed up on legitimate, good faith complaints and the police owed it to them to conduct an earnest investigation into the matter."
I guess the invitations didn't read: "Come to my bowling and strippers party".
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 14:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: 16 is NOT a child...
In English law under-18 is a "child" - or in some cases "looking under 18". Yet many 18 year olds are indistinguishable from twenty-somethings.
Children being sent out to work at 13 as happened in the 1930s might be considered as thrusting adult responsibilities upon them - even if they were minors until 21. However UK society seems to have gone to the other extreme by apparently infantilising them - and expecting miracles the day they turn 18.
Strangely enough the English law age of criminal responsibility has decreased to 10. So a 15 year old is considered not to understand the responsibilities of sex - yet a 10 year old gets charged with sexual assault or even rape.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 09:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: You know how the UK is labelled a 'Nanny State', yes?
the UK is just confused not mindless...
At 16 you can have sex.. but don't you dare take a picture of the person your screwing.. no no no, that would be wrong...... Until that & many other stupid laws gets changed I will just have to accept that the UK gov is to be treated like a child, i.e. don't tell them the truth or they might throw a tantrum...
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: You know how the UK is labelled a 'Nanny State', yes?
2At 16 you can have sex.. but don't you dare take a picture of the person your screwing.. no no no, that would be wrong...... "
The 2003 Sexual Offences Act made "indecent" the criterion for under-18 as well as under-16. Previously 16/17 had the criterion of "obscene" rather than the wider "indecent".
It gets even more convoluted. There is a let-out clause that says it is ok - if the under-18 subject is your legally married spouse. However the old 16/17 year old test of "obscene" might still apply to a married couple.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 09:30 GMT Mystic Megabyte
dorks
I was on a European tour with a Jazz-Funk fusion band from NYC, the youngest member was about 30 years old. We took a walk down a sex street in Holland and it was like being with a bunch of 16 year old boys. Pathetic!
You would think that Jazz musicians from NYC would be cool. Nope!
What is it with Americans and nudity?
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Valuable
"Glad to know no valuable police resrouces were wasted conducting this 3 month investigation"
No doubt the police were investigating whether she was playing Mrs Robinson for the boys too. After 3 months getting nowhere on that tack they then had to do something to make the investigation look merited. Is there an election pending with law enforcement on the agenda?
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 10:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
The interesting bit is that this incident toke place in New York, where it is legal for women to walk in public while topless! Which might be why the strippers aren't in danger, they haven't done anything illegal by standing in front of the boys in 'small' cloth (nothing in the article says that they actually stripped).
So it will go down to, she hired 'strippers', an occupation that society is not very found of!
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 20:32 GMT Mike Moyle
Re: At 16, he can drive......
"But at 16, he's legal to drive? And vote. And die for his country...."
No. I don't know of any state that allows voting at 16.
...And under 18 requires parents' signed consent to enlist in the military.
...And most states that allow driving at 16 allow it as a restricted license -- no driving between 11 PM and 6 AM, say; license valid only in the issuing state; no passengers except an adult carrying a valid driver's license, etc. Few states (if any -- I haven't checked the relevant statutes everywhere) give unrestricted licenses to 16 year-olds.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:03 GMT Loyal Commenter
If you endanger someone's physical or mental wellbeing, okay, it is reasonable for measures to be taken. 'Moral' wellbeing, however, is a subjective term, and is bound to be tainted by the preconceptions of the beholder. Such fuzzy terms do not belong in law books, at least not before thought crime appears on the statutes.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Personally, I think they're causing more damage to the kids' emotional wellbeing by making such a big deal out of something perfectly normal and human - as far as I could understand this case, they were merely being live versions of what the kids probably have in mags under their bed (sorry, showing my age, I mean on their smartphones). If you just let it be the kids would probably just say "oh, my mum has those too" and done with it.
What about smaller kids? Are they going to bring out kid blindfolds so newborns are not exposed to the view of their mother when feeding? They really ought to get a grip over there.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:36 GMT Graham Marsden
" likely to be injurious...
"...to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child younger than 17"
So how is this "likelihood" determined? What studies have *actually* demonstrated that such behaviour is "likely" to cause this? Or is it just based on supposition and narrow belief that "we think this is wrong, so it should be illegal" without any proof?
What do you think, boys and girls? (If you're old enough to be allowed to think about this, of course...!)
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 15:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: " likely to be injurious...
"Or is it just based on supposition and narrow belief that "we think this is wrong, so it should be illegal" without any proof?"
Prohibitions on sexual matters are very subjective in cultures. Modern church-fearing legislators proscriptions would have put many of their own ancestors behind bars. In many farming communities fecundity was important - and the marriage only happened once that had been proved. Does Memphis still have an age of marriage (for girls) of 12?
The best justification I have heard for a high age of consent is that an industrialised society, and particularly a post-industrial one, needs a well educated work force. Therefore it pays to keep the kids focused on their education rather than becoming early parents.
However in several European countries they achieve this by educating the kids in many ways - including the mysteries and realities of sex. Ignorance and "just say no" tends to have the opposite effect.
Ages of sexual consent vary so much across the world that the only apparently solid feature is "not before puberty". Marriage is a different matter - and at a very young age it is often for the cementing of family alliances rather than sex.
The UK teenage generation appear to be getting sex in amounts that my 1950s generation never dreamed about. The result appears to be that after a couple of years experimentation the kids decide they prefer socialising with a wider group of friends. Settling down with one person is then delayed until they have a career established.
In my day people had to get married to find out about sex - and then often felt trapped in a loveless marriage with two kids to raise.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 15:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: " likely to be injurious...
"What studies have *actually* demonstrated that such behaviour is "likely" to cause this? "
If one thinks about the scare stories that were/are used to stop kids experimenting with sex - then those cause a lot of emotional damage. You can have "guilt" inculcated into you from a very young age - and it is then not easy to shake off that deep-seated inhibition or guilt as an adult.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:38 GMT Wardy01
How were the boys in danger?
I fail to see the problem ...
Should google be brought up on charges too then?
Since technically ANYONE with an internet connection might see boobs on google from any number of potential search terms.
Really ... ok so UK law aint much better ... in fact law in general is complete bulls**t these days and what it really boils down to is who can put forward the best argument at the end of the day ... this reminds me of the tv series "suits".
If the police have nothing better than this to do ... cut their budget!
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 13:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
What's actually wrong here
Is not that some teenagers got to look at some female flesh. There is nothing wrong with a heterosexual male of any age looking at female flesh, as long as the female who owns it doesn't mind.
What's wrong here (if anything) is the objectifying of women, flesh and all, by laying it on in the form of a strip show.
No. I'm not proposing to ban porn --- or even strip shows. I just don't think that this is a good way of giving the next generation better attitudes to the opposite sex. But nor do I think it is a matter for law: that is just stupid.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 15:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Be honest
I remember a Radio Club Xmas party in the early 1960s. Someone brought along a projector and a "blue" movie. Unfortunately they forgot the screen. The clubhouse had just been redecorated - so they projected it onto the white wallpaper. The large orange flowers on the wallpaper added a touch of colour to the black and white film. It was "soft" - mainly being a strip by two female models in an artist's studio as they "accidentally" get paint on their clothes. A change form the airbrushed Health and Efficiency magazines that occasionally circulated in the school playground.
The youngest club members would have been 13/14. We possibly sampled the "Bulls Blood" wine too; complete with cork bits as no one had brought a corkscrew - then went back to lemonade.
The older members of the club were veterans of the war, or National Service - so they had a somewhat anti-authority bias. They would have laid down their lives to protect the youngsters from any real danger.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 16:25 GMT JeeBee
"If she's found guilty of "knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child younger than 17", she could face a maximum of 12 months in county jail."
I'm sure the child will be more mentally affected by having his mother go to jail (and indeed by going through this entire case) than seeing two strippers dance.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 16:56 GMT Mike Moyle
Age of Consent laws
You may think that the U.S.'s age of consent laws are "absurdly low", but one reason for them is to enforce anti-predation laws. Equal treatment under the law means that you (technically) aren't allowed to say "members of THIS group are allowed to do 'x', but members of THAT group are not." True, this leads to teen-aged sexters being accused of child pornography, but it also leads to priests and other authority figures being sent down for sexual abuse of a minor.
So... you know... As with most laws;kind of a mixed bag.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 17:30 GMT Alan Johnson
Even more ridiculous case when I lived in the US
When I lived in the US a local women was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude with 3 months in jail for arranging her sons 17th Birthday party. He had several friends round to her house who stayed overnight. She took all their car keys and then gave them a crate of beer. Seems very good responsible parenting to me but resulted in 3 months in jail. I had always wondered what the heck a crime of moral turpitude was on the visa waiva form so then I knew - responsible parenting.
The US is strangely alien and scary at times. I had a coworker tell me that she was looking forward to Nuclear war because all the true christains would go to heaven and all the rest straight to hell. She got annoyed when I disputed this. It makes me laugh when US politiians go on about religuous fundamentalisim as a threat to justify killing large numbers of civilians and poorly armed soldiers. I have been to many countries but by far the most dangerously fundamentalist is the US.
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 18:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
some things don't change
Many years ago in what was then Rhodesia, I fell in with a bunch of Rhodesian Light Infantry looking to unwind after some particularly hairy over-the-border operations in Mozambique. Among other horrors, one lad gave a graphic description of examining crisply burned bodies for identification.
We dropped into a bar habitually frequented by prostitutes and discovered that they only came on shift at ten that evening. Since we'd be legless if we remained in the bar that long, we decided to take in a movie.
As it turned out, we couldn't get in. We were all under 21 and the censors had decided that the film contained too much sex and violence for people below that age.
It's amazing what each generation exposes and 'protects' its kids from.
-
Saturday 23rd February 2013 20:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: some things don't change
"We were all under 21 and the censors had decided that the film contained too much sex and violence for people below that age."
About the same time my company posted me to South Africa. My boss took me to a drive-in movie with his pre-teen kids in the back seats. As the film was a "General" rating the censors had made one small cut (as I discovered later). They removed a fleeting shot of a topless woman leaning out of her bedroom window to hurl some abuse at noisy people in the street.
As I say - that was the only cut needed for family viewing of "Dirty Harry" - a very violent film for its time.
-
-
Friday 22nd February 2013 23:27 GMT Richard Altmann
WTF
There´s a ruling in NY that if one looks at its female coworker for more then 8 seconds its sexual harassement.
I wouldn´t even pass Immigration. My wife is of african orign and she is "Proud to be Black", my daughter insits of "Chocolate". Plus they are proud of their female assets and you are welcome to admire them (visualy) as much as you like. There has just been a case in Germany where a politician tried to chat up a journalist and she went completly off the tracks and public.
Back to the point: Being aged 13 there wasn´t a stripper who could shock me with anything anymore. And that was far before the interweb. Like:oh,it´s my 18th birthday but you are still only 17. we are shagging since 2 years now but the law says that from today on i have sexual intercourse with a minor. Nothing wrong for a 13 year old boy watching a female in a bikini singing "Happy Birthday". Goes home and has a wank (if he liked it).
I go whereever my company sends me , near, far, middle East, Eastern Europe, the Africas. But they accept that i won´t go to the U.S.A. It´s still a land of the free but until you put your laywers on the next pole all this O.J.Simpsons and "he looked at me in a harassing way" wont go away. And yes i am 13 and love to watch a stripper.
-
Saturday 23rd February 2013 01:40 GMT Herby
We need to adjust the 'morality'...
...of the prosecutor. He has probably single handily caused great moral discord for the youths.
Of course, I congratulate the adult in this case. At least the party wasn't a bunch of goons (which 16 year olds can be) raising a ruckus. I suspect that the eyes of the children were no more polluted than if they had been on any nice warm beach.
The indecency of public display of body fluids. It seems if the orifice isn't displayed, then it is OK. Perhaps one can make a shield so that the origination is not shown. That would be interesting.
And this is IT because? Oh, yes, it has Bulgarian Air Bags. That makes it IT related.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
