15 year-old boy forced to register as sex offender

[The Blaatschapen]

Because the other minor allegedly did the same sex offense but did not get convicted nor registered.

I'm not saying I support the outcome of the case - I don't - but just to help differentiate between the actors:

A boy took the initiative and sent a picture of his erect penis to two underage girls, unsolicited. The girls did not send any nude pictures to him without a prior request.
The boy then requested nude pictures from the girls, "badgering them until they complied with his requests". The girls did not request any nude pictures from the boy.
After repeated requests, the girls sent pictures to the boy.
The boy kept the nude pictures on his phone. There is no information that the girls kept his nude picture on their phones (or elsewhere). On the contrary, one of the girls testified that she deleted the photograph after receiving it, and the other testified that she did not recall what she had done with the photograph.

The crime: To knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

“Sexually exploitative material” includes any photograph that depicts a child engaged in “explicit sexual conduct,” which includes, as relevant here, “erotic nudity.” § 18-6-403(2)(e), -(2)(j), C.R.S. (2018). The statute defines “erotic nudity” as “the display” of certain intimate body parts “for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of one or more of the persons involved.

So:
- The boy had kept the pictures, and knowingly possessed or controlled them. We have no evidence suggesting the girls kept the pictures. This is the main difference, but also:
- The nude pictures of the girls were for the overt sexual gratification of the boy, which we can conclude from him repeatedly asking the girls for the photos after sending them a picture of his erect penis. There would be no such evidence for the girls, who got an unsolicited dick pic first and seemingly never asked for more.

The conclusion: the minors did not do "the same sex offence".

I stand corrected.

[Gravlen]

Obviously, I find this to be abhorrent. Of course, the girl he exchanged them with was charged with nothing. This is yet another example of the institutional bias of our courts against men and young boys. It's clear drastic changes need to happen in this country if we are to correct this sort of bias.

Thoughts?

I think the OP is a good example of why it's difficult to have an honest discussion about potential biases in the courts. When a story is presented by someone who has not bothered to look beyond the headline and first paragraph of an article, and completely fails to understand what's happening, it can easily end up in outrage based on a false premise.

"Two groups of people did two different things, and they were treated differently as a result. We need drastic change now!!"

Good job, OP, distracting yourself away from the real outrage here, which is that he was required by the trial court to register as a sex offender.

[Based Groyper]

Thank God we focus on stuff like this instead of rape gangs. Whenever I THINK of teenagers having consensual sex my blood begins to boil.

[The Krogan]

A bit confused, was he 15 when convicted or did he get convicted later on in life for the pics? Didn't really see a timeline in this source.

[Gim]

Don't they have a juvenile hall for that?

[Grenartia]

Thank God we focus on stuff like this instead of rape gangs. Whenever I THINK of teenagers having consensual sex my blood begins to boil.

Because the other minor allegedly did the same sex offense but did not get convicted nor registered.

I'm not saying I support the outcome of the case - I don't - but just to help differentiate between the actors:

A boy took the initiative and sent a picture of his erect penis to two underage girls, unsolicited. The girls did not send any nude pictures to him without a prior request.
The boy then requested nude pictures from the girls, "badgering them until they complied with his requests". The girls did not request any nude pictures from the boy.
After repeated requests, the girls sent pictures to the boy.
The boy kept the nude pictures on his phone. There is no information that the girls kept his nude picture on their phones (or elsewhere). On the contrary, one of the girls testified that she deleted the photograph after receiving it, and the other testified that she did not recall what she had done with the photograph.

The crime: To knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

“Sexually exploitative material” includes any photograph that depicts a child engaged in “explicit sexual conduct,” which includes, as relevant here, “erotic nudity.” § 18-6-403(2)(e), -(2)(j), C.R.S. (2018). The statute defines “erotic nudity” as “the display” of certain intimate body parts “for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of one or more of the persons involved.

So:
- The boy had kept the pictures, and knowingly possessed or controlled them. We have no evidence suggesting the girls kept the pictures. This is the main difference, but also:
- The nude pictures of the girls were for the overt sexual gratification of the boy, which we can conclude from him repeatedly asking the girls for the photos after sending them a picture of his erect penis. There would be no such evidence for the girls, who got an unsolicited dick pic first and seemingly never asked for more.

The conclusion: the minors did not do "the same sex offence".

[Ostroeuropa]

Thank God we focus on stuff like this instead of rape gangs. Whenever I THINK of teenagers having consensual sex my blood begins to boil.

I'm not saying I support the outcome of the case - I don't - but just to help differentiate between the actors:

A boy took the initiative and sent a picture of his erect penis to two underage girls, unsolicited. The girls did not send any nude pictures to him without a prior request.
The boy then requested nude pictures from the girls, "badgering them until they complied with his requests". The girls did not request any nude pictures from the boy.
After repeated requests, the girls sent pictures to the boy.
The boy kept the nude pictures on his phone. There is no information that the girls kept his nude picture on their phones (or elsewhere). On the contrary, one of the girls testified that she deleted the photograph after receiving it, and the other testified that she did not recall what she had done with the photograph.

The crime: To knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

“Sexually exploitative material” includes any photograph that depicts a child engaged in “explicit sexual conduct,” which includes, as relevant here, “erotic nudity.” § 18-6-403(2)(e), -(2)(j), C.R.S. (2018). The statute defines “erotic nudity” as “the display” of certain intimate body parts “for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of one or more of the persons involved.

So:
- The boy had kept the pictures, and knowingly possessed or controlled them. We have no evidence suggesting the girls kept the pictures. This is the main difference, but also:
- The nude pictures of the girls were for the overt sexual gratification of the boy, which we can conclude from him repeatedly asking the girls for the photos after sending them a picture of his erect penis. There would be no such evidence for the girls, who got an unsolicited dick pic first and seemingly never asked for more.

The conclusion: the minors did not do "the same sex offence".

Using the fact the boy initiated the encounter as evidence it was for his gratification while using evidence the girls didn't initiate as evidence it wasn't for theirs is sexism against males due to dating dynamics as they currently stand.

The case is inconsistent, but nowhere is the girls refusing to send nudes noted. Only their "Reluctance" to do so.

The girl hasn't alleged she feels victimized by the encounter. It's also difficult to argue he pressured her through text messages devoid of threatening content. This is an example of how sexual dynamics victimize males by placing them in a perpetrator role.

This is what courting is like when you're young and often into adulthood too, due to slut shaming and other dynamics.

"Reluctance" is not refusal. It is a face-saving maneuver girls engage in to avoid appearing too sexual and thus "sluts.".

That behavior has, both in the court and in the minds of people like yourself, turned an ordinary sexual encounter into one where the boy is a perpetrator merely because even a 15 year old child is better at understanding social cues and subtext than modern feminists or the justice system.

"I dunno billy, I really shouldn't..." -> "Ah come on it'll be okay." -> "II dunnnooo…." -> "It'll be fun." -> "OKAY I'LL GO GET MY HANDCUFFS."
V
"No billy I don't want to.". -> "K."

This is an example of how slut-shaming of women harms men by placing them into a perpetrator role and shielding women from being viewed as participatory in sex acts.

[Based Groyper]

Thank God we focus on stuff like this instead of rape gangs. Whenever I THINK of teenagers having consensual sex my blood begins to boil.

I'm not saying I support the outcome of the case - I don't - but just to help differentiate between the actors:

A boy took the initiative and sent a picture of his erect penis to two underage girls, unsolicited. The girls did not send any nude pictures to him without a prior request.
The boy then requested nude pictures from the girls, "badgering them until they complied with his requests". The girls did not request any nude pictures from the boy.
After repeated requests, the girls sent pictures to the boy.
The boy kept the nude pictures on his phone. There is no information that the girls kept his nude picture on their phones (or elsewhere). On the contrary, one of the girls testified that she deleted the photograph after receiving it, and the other testified that she did not recall what she had done with the photograph.

The crime: To knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

“Sexually exploitative material” includes any photograph that depicts a child engaged in “explicit sexual conduct,” which includes, as relevant here, “erotic nudity.” § 18-6-403(2)(e), -(2)(j), C.R.S. (2018). The statute defines “erotic nudity” as “the display” of certain intimate body parts “for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of one or more of the persons involved.

So:
- The boy had kept the pictures, and knowingly possessed or controlled them. We have no evidence suggesting the girls kept the pictures. This is the main difference, but also:
- The nude pictures of the girls were for the overt sexual gratification of the boy, which we can conclude from him repeatedly asking the girls for the photos after sending them a picture of his erect penis. There would be no such evidence for the girls, who got an unsolicited dick pic first and seemingly never asked for more.

The conclusion: the minors did not do "the same sex offence".

Oh my God he 'repeatedly badgered' them for nude photos. I "repeatedly badger" women to have sex with me, and they seem quite capable of resisting it. Either women are individuals who can chose to tell perverts to fuck off on their own accord, or they are especially susceptible to peer pressure and bullying and should not be allowed to engage in this sort of activity full stop. Either way a teenager should not have his life ruined because he was successful in getting girls to send him nudes. If you agree with the irrational principle, "a stern talking to" would suffice.

[Gravlen]

A bit confused, was he 15 when convicted or did he get convicted later on in life for the pics? Didn't really see a timeline in this source.

He was 15 in 2012, when he sent the pictures. The arrest and subsequent conviction happened later in life(but not much later).

[Cetacea]

.. Sending nudes while under the age of consent is a crime.

people who are underage should not be held criminally responsible for stupid decisions like sending photos - the Crime should be competent adults receiving such material. As such a 15 year old should never be criminalized in this way whether they be male or female or anything else.

[Grenartia]

Oh my God he 'repeatedly badgered' them for nude photos. I "repeatedly badger" women to have sex with me, and they seem quite capable of resisting it.

I see you admit to sexual harrassment.

Either women are individuals who can chose to tell perverts to fuck off on their own accord, or they are especially susceptible to peer pressure and bullying and should not be allowed to engage in this sort of activity full stop. Either way a teenager should not have his life ruined because he was successful in getting girls to send him nudes. If you agree with the irrational principle, "a stern talking to" would suffice.

Option C: this was sexual harrassment, and should be punished as such, regardless of his "success" at it.

Admittedly, the appropriate punishment would be something like community service, not "get publicly labelled a sex offender for the rest of your life".

[Gravlen]

Using the fact the boy initiated the encounter as evidence it was for his gratification while using evidence the girls didn't initiate as evidence it wasn't for theirs is sexism against males due to dating dynamics as they currently stand.

No,it isn't. The fact of the matter is that they never needed to ask that question of the girls, since the authorities never found that they did knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

When you can't get past the first threshold, you don't ever get to the second.

The case is inconsistent,

How is it inconsistent?

but nowhere is the girls refusing to send nudes noted. Only their "Reluctance" to do so.

True, but so what? That has no bearing on the case. It's not a requirement that he forced them to do anything. The fact that he did repeatedly ask, however, in light of the context (sexually charged messages and his own penis picture) is evidence supporting the notion that the pictures the girls sent were for his own overt sexual gratification.

T.B.’s personal involvement in soliciting the photos, his repeated requests for them, and the sexual banter in the text messages accompanying those requests demonstrate that T.B.’s “overt sexual gratification” was the whole point of these text exchanges.

[Grenartia]

.. Sending nudes while under the age of consent is a crime.

people who are underage should not be held criminally responsible for stupid decisions like sending photos - the Crime should be competent adults receiving such material. As such a 15 year old should never be criminalized in this way whether they be male or female or anything else.

I mean, I'd hate to be locked up and branded a sex offender because some 13 year old accidentally sent dick pics to the wrong number. Nor would I want to have that fate forced upon me because a 13 year old catfished me and told me they were 18 or something.

The line should be requesting material from someone known to be underage.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh my God he 'repeatedly badgered' them for nude photos. I "repeatedly badger" women to have sex with me, and they seem quite capable of resisting it.

I see you admit to sexual harrassment.

Either women are individuals who can chose to tell perverts to fuck off on their own accord, or they are especially susceptible to peer pressure and bullying and should not be allowed to engage in this sort of activity full stop. Either way a teenager should not have his life ruined because he was successful in getting girls to send him nudes. If you agree with the irrational principle, "a stern talking to" would suffice.

Option C: this was sexual harrassment, and should be punished as such, regardless of his "success" at it.

Admittedly, the appropriate punishment would be something like community service, not "get publicly labelled a sex offender for the rest of your life".

Pressing for a firm yes or no in the face of ambiguity and waffling is not sexual harassment. It is what men have to do to get past the face-saving behavior some women engage in. Feminists like to claim this is sexual harassment in order to gaslight men and weaponize sexism against them and paint them as predatory by ignoring context that makes that goal of theirs more difficult, but it's not sexual harassment. Especially not in teens and young adults where they haven't grown out of the slut shaming dynamic yet.

Now, repeatedly asking after a no has been given is different and may well constitute sexual harassment. But the court does not say that occurred.
It says the girls were reluctant, not refusing and made to change their minds.

[Page]

Sex ed really needs to be ramped up for this kind of thing. Sending nudes while under the age of consent is a crime.

Criminalizing children exploring their sexuality with other children is a ridiculous thing to do. You may as well go join the folk frothing at the mouth over giving condoms to underage kids being "facilitating child sex" or whatever.

I agree with you on this one. Teenagers shouldn't be sexting but this should really be handled by parents and counselors.

[Ostroeuropa]

Using the fact the boy initiated the encounter as evidence it was for his gratification while using evidence the girls didn't initiate as evidence it wasn't for theirs is sexism against males due to dating dynamics as they currently stand.

No,it isn't. The fact of the matter is that they never needed to ask that question of the girls, since the authorities never found that they did knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

When you can't get past the first threshold, you don't ever get to the second.

The case is inconsistent,

How is it inconsistent?

but nowhere is the girls refusing to send nudes noted. Only their "Reluctance" to do so.

True, but so what? That has no bearing on the case. It's not a requirement that he forced them to do anything. The fact that he did repeatedly ask, however, in light of the context (sexually charged messages and his own penis picture) is evidence supporting the notion that the pictures the girls sent were for his own overt sexual gratification.

T.B.’s personal involvement in soliciting the photos, his repeated requests for them, and the sexual banter in the text messages accompanying those requests demonstrate that T.B.’s “overt sexual gratification” was the whole point of these text exchanges.

This is the point i'm making though, the system you are using to evaluate this behavior, given the dynamics of flirtation at that age, is sexist against men and boys. It's assuming the girls didn't get overt sexual gratification from receiving the images, and also assuming they didn't get any from sending them, based on a performative ritual of reluctance.

[Ostroeuropa]

Criminalizing children exploring their sexuality with other children is a ridiculous thing to do. You may as well go join the folk frothing at the mouth over giving condoms to underage kids being "facilitating child sex" or whatever.

I agree with you on this one. Teenagers shouldn't be sexting but this should really be handled by parents and counselors.

Honestly why shouldn't they be sexting tbh? I can only think of data security reasons. If it's the whole "Ideally children wouldn't have sex" thing, idk man. I've given up on that being practical, and if something isn't practical it probably isn't a good idea to pretend its what we should aim for. I think we should just aim to get kids to do it safely and so on.

Yeah, data security is part of that. Ideally that'd be handled by IT lessons and so on and the implications just settle in.

[Grenartia]

Using the fact the boy initiated the encounter as evidence it was for his gratification while using evidence the girls didn't initiate as evidence it wasn't for theirs is sexism against males due to dating dynamics as they currently stand.

No,it isn't. The fact of the matter is that they never needed to ask that question of the girls, since the authorities never found that they did knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

When you can't get past the first threshold, you don't ever get to the second.

The case is inconsistent,

How is it inconsistent?

but nowhere is the girls refusing to send nudes noted. Only their "Reluctance" to do so.

True, but so what? That has no bearing on the case. It's not a requirement that he forced them to do anything. The fact that he did repeatedly ask, however, in light of the context (sexually charged messages and his own penis picture) is evidence supporting the notion that the pictures the girls sent were for his own overt sexual gratification.

T.B.’s personal involvement in soliciting the photos, his repeated requests for them, and the sexual banter in the text messages accompanying those requests demonstrate that T.B.’s “overt sexual gratification” was the whole point of these text exchanges.

Also that fucking "sexist against males" bullshit. The dating dynamics need to change if sexual harrassment is a requirement to 'succeed' at dating. Something tells me he'd cry foul if someone said a woman shouldn't be charged with vandalism for freebleeding all over a historic building, but the minute a man or boy does something fucked up, its "the matriarchy's" fault.

[Ostroeuropa]

No,it isn't. The fact of the matter is that they never needed to ask that question of the girls, since the authorities never found that they did knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

When you can't get past the first threshold, you don't ever get to the second.


How is it inconsistent?


True, but so what? That has no bearing on the case. It's not a requirement that he forced them to do anything. The fact that he did repeatedly ask, however, in light of the context (sexually charged messages and his own penis picture) is evidence supporting the notion that the pictures the girls sent were for his own overt sexual gratification.

T.B.’s personal involvement in soliciting the photos, his repeated requests for them, and the sexual banter in the text messages accompanying those requests demonstrate that T.B.’s “overt sexual gratification” was the whole point of these text exchanges.

Also that fucking "sexist against males" bullshit. The dating dynamics need to change if sexual harrassment is a requirement to 'succeed' at dating. Something tells me he'd cry foul if someone said a woman shouldn't be charged with vandalism for freebleeding all over a historic building, but the minute a man or boy does something fucked up, its "the matriarchy's" fault.

I agree the dating dynamics need to be changed. I disagree it's sexual harassment, and I've explained precisely why to you. The overwhelming majority of people understand the difference between socially ritualized ambiguity and refusal. The only people who don't are kool-aid drinking feminists.

Probably people with social disabilities too, which is one reason i'd support it being changed.

As for "The matriarchies fault", do you need me to show you the studies on who slut shames women?

[Based Groyper]

Oh my God he 'repeatedly badgered' them for nude photos. I "repeatedly badger" women to have sex with me, and they seem quite capable of resisting it.

I see you admit to sexual harrassment.

Rational, normal stable response to criticism.

Option C: this was sexual harrassment, and should be punished as such, regardless of his "success" at it.

[/quote]

Just repeating the judgement of authority figures is not an argument. Try again.

[Gravlen]

No,it isn't. The fact of the matter is that they never needed to ask that question of the girls, since the authorities never found that they did knowingly possess or control any “sexually exploitative material” for any purpose.

When you can't get past the first threshold, you don't ever get to the second.


How is it inconsistent?


True, but so what? That has no bearing on the case. It's not a requirement that he forced them to do anything. The fact that he did repeatedly ask, however, in light of the context (sexually charged messages and his own penis picture) is evidence supporting the notion that the pictures the girls sent were for his own overt sexual gratification.

T.B.’s personal involvement in soliciting the photos, his repeated requests for them, and the sexual banter in the text messages accompanying those requests demonstrate that T.B.’s “overt sexual gratification” was the whole point of these text exchanges.

This is the point i'm making though, the system you are using to evaluate this behavior, given the dynamics of flirtation at that age, is sexist against men and boys.

So according to you, it's sexist to look at the facts of the case... Rrrriiiight....

Don't you know that facts don't care about your feelings?

It's assuming the girls didn't get overt sexual gratification from receiving the images, and also assuming they didn't get any from sending them, based on a performative ritual of reluctance.

It isn't assuming anything of the sort. They may have gotten - indeed, it's likely they did get - sexual gratification from sending the images, but that doesn't matter since it's not criminal to send selfies. He recieved them, and he kept them (unlike what they did with his unsolicited dick pic), and that caused him to get into trouble with the law.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is the point i'm making though, the system you are using to evaluate this behavior, given the dynamics of flirtation at that age, is sexist against men and boys.

So according to you, it's sexist to look at the facts of the case... Rrrriiiight....

Don't you know that facts don't care about your feelings?

It's assuming the girls didn't get overt sexual gratification from receiving the images, and also assuming they didn't get any from sending them, based on a performative ritual of reluctance.

It isn't assuming anything of the sort. They may have gotten - indeed, it's likely they did get - sexual gratification from sending the images, but that doesn't matter since it's not criminal to send selfies. He recieved them, and he kept them (unlike what they did with his unsolicited dick pic), and that caused him to get into trouble with the law.

The law as written and the behavior it intends to police is sexist in its view of the dynamics of the interaction and which behaviors are predatory, and which are not.

[Grenartia]

I see you admit to sexual harrassment.

Rational, normal stable response to criticism.

Hey, I'm not the one who blatantly admitted to sexual harrassment.

Option C: this was sexual harrassment, and should be punished as such, regardless of his "success" at it.

Just repeating the judgement of authority figures is not an argument. Try again.

Actually, that was an original thought on my part. I just so happened to independently come to the same conclusion as them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Rational, normal stable response to criticism.

Hey, I'm not the one who blatantly admitted to sexual harrassment.

Just repeating the judgement of authority figures is not an argument. Try again.

Actually, that was an original thought on my part. I just so happened to independently come to the same conclusion as them.

Nobody except feminists would think this is sexual harassment, and the use of that accusation is done to terrorize political opponents into silence on the issue and facilitate their gaslighting and attack on men. It only works when being fundamentally dishonest. In reality, he admitted to having a different conception of sexual harassment than a fringe anti-male hate movement does, just like the overwhelming majority of people.

A more honest way for you to discuss this would be; "In my view, that is sexual harassment because X.". But you won't do that, because the X is absurd ideological nonsense that nobody believes. So instead you rely on bullying people and leveraging societies aversion to sexual predators by tricking people into thinking you're discussing the same thing.

Like if I called you a rapist very loudly and repeatedly because I don't like your haircut.

Once again:

Ordinary mentally well adults who are not ideological zealots and kool aid drinkers are socially competent enough to understand the social dynamics occuring, and can distinguish between ritualized reluctance performed so women can save face and genuine refusal.

You may think those dynamics shouldn't exist. I may agree.

But they do, and being deliberately ignorant of them and pretending its sexual harassment is merely a means for you to attack men and demonize them for a behavior chiefly sourced in womens attitudes to sex. (Which incidentally, ensures the dynamic persists, because you are not confronting the actual culprits).

"Do you want a drink?"
*coy* "I really shouldn't..."
"Ah come on."
"Ohhhh... it'll be a bad day tommorow if I do, but I really want to."
"Well, screw tommorow."
"Okay."

-
EVIL MALE POISONS WOMAN AT PARTY.

[Chestaan]

Lol.
That case Is international news because it's not ordinary. But that kind of outcome is what happens for male victims of rape all the time, the female perpetrator gets let off because reasons and she's a good person and blah blah.

Women are absolutely a privileged class in the court system and criminal justice, across all categories of crime.

Except there is a real institutional bias in our court system against men.

That one case does not change that fact.

And yet somehow its women's fault that a historically male-dominated country and its systems of government and law have established harsher punishment for males in sex crime cases. Things would be so much better if they were all Handmaids I suppose?

I'm sure that all the men sentenced to extra long sentences will take immense heart in the fact that it was a male.dominated system that punished them. Like seriously, what material effect does it have if it is men or women who caused the bias?

To the thread in general, I find it absurd that those who speak of bodily autonomy believe that taking a picture of one's own body can be a crime, let alone child pornography.