Broadsheet

Can a girl sexually abuse herself?

A 15-year-old faces child porn charges after distributing naked self-portraits.

This is unbelievable: A 15-year-old Ohio girl currently faces juvenile child pornography charges for allegedly taking and distributing nude photos of herself.

After Licking Valley High School officials discovered the photos on the girl's phone and tipped off police last Friday, she was arrested, held in jail over the weekend and charged with possession of criminal tools and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, ABC reports. If convicted, she could spend several years in juvenile detention and be forced to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years of her life (although, since she is a first-time offender and a minor, the judge could decide against making her register).

What's more, charges might still be filed against the students who received the photos, regardless of whether they received them unwillingly. State law holds that "anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony," according to the Newark Advocate. If convicted, they could face registration as a sex offender for 10 years.

Clearly, the states' child porn laws were not written to address these types of situations -- and they do not take into consideration the technology at kids' disposal. There are now infinite ways for teenagers to virtually play-act their sexuality. Are minors guilty of sexually abusing themselves for engaging in this kind of exploration in all of the many (admittedly frightening) ways available to them? How can we consider minors both incapable of giving legally meaningful sexual consent and criminal should they make a sexual decision for themselves without an adult's involvement?

That's not to say that some punishment -- whether it's meted out by their parents, the school or the law -- isn't reasonable in this case. After all, the general reaction to a teenage boy sending out explicit photos of himself to female classmates would likely, and rightly, be that it was sexual harassment -- why should it be any different if a girl is the sender? Also, distributing nude photos of yourself is potentially self-endangering behavior that should be addressed -- obviously.

But calling this girl a sex offender for distributing pornographic images of herself is crazy-talk. We have to acknowledge that, however unprepared she was to make the decision, she does have ownership over her own body; her sexual choice is not the same as an adult making a sexual choice for her.

Feminism in the news

Loading...

Currently in Salon

  • The Democrats' lust to win at any cost stripped abortion from the healthcare bill. Can pro-choicers put it back?
  • Why the hopeless story of a ghetto teen is just the kind of movie black people need right now
  • The fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers: Each ushered in a new American era
  • Don Draper and the denizens of Sterling Cooper take drastic measures in the face of a brave new world
  • Inside the elaborate, disturbing and downright riveting world of child-beauty pageants
  • This just in from the Institute for the Advancement of Conservative Science: History began on 1/20/09!
  • The untold story of Johnny Cash, protest singer and Native American activist, and his feud with the music industry
  • A memoirist searches for the truth about a fatal shooting in 1960s Phoenix
  • My partner says he's just not attracted to me "right now"
  • The aftermath of Wall Street's meltdown reminds me of the aftermath of the Berlin Wall's fall. Not in a good way