Should "visual sexual aggression" be against the law?
Apparently, there are some politicians and police officers in Maine who think the answer is "yes" (thanks to Peregrine John for pointing this potential law out):
I have a lot of questions about such a law. What does peering actually mean? Does staring at a teen who looks 25 when one is at the beach count? Does staring at some kids like I did a few years ago because they looked like they were trying to get into some trouble count or am I excluded from the law because I am a woman? A Class C Felony is a serious charge, will people (mainly men, I assume) be put in jail for the simple act of staring? How do you know the person had the intent of "visual sexual aggression"? How does one determine if staring or peering is aggressive or not? One person's aggression is another's peaceful gaze. This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?
Update: I have contacted and left messages and email for Representative Dawn Hill, who is sponsoring this bill, asking for clarification. As soon as (and if) she responds, I will post an update. I have also emailed the reporter of the article that I linked to above to see why there is a discrepancy between what this bill says and the story presented.
Update II: There appears to be an amendment to the bill here (thanks to commenters, and to readers for emailing it) and Dave Choate, the reporter of the article quoted above emails the following to me:
Finally: Looks like the news story isn't true, based on my conversation with Travis Kennedy of the Maine Legislature.
Those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon.
A bill that passed the House last month aims to strengthen the crime of visual sexual aggression against children, according to state Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York.
Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.
"There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with," Alexander said.
He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places....
Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.
Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a "loophole" in the state's criminal law statutes.
I have a lot of questions about such a law. What does peering actually mean? Does staring at a teen who looks 25 when one is at the beach count? Does staring at some kids like I did a few years ago because they looked like they were trying to get into some trouble count or am I excluded from the law because I am a woman? A Class C Felony is a serious charge, will people (mainly men, I assume) be put in jail for the simple act of staring? How do you know the person had the intent of "visual sexual aggression"? How does one determine if staring or peering is aggressive or not? One person's aggression is another's peaceful gaze. This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?
Update: I have contacted and left messages and email for Representative Dawn Hill, who is sponsoring this bill, asking for clarification. As soon as (and if) she responds, I will post an update. I have also emailed the reporter of the article that I linked to above to see why there is a discrepancy between what this bill says and the story presented.
Update II: There appears to be an amendment to the bill here (thanks to commenters, and to readers for emailing it) and Dave Choate, the reporter of the article quoted above emails the following to me:
Helen,
As indicated to me, the person could be arrested if they were found to be peering at a child in a public place; i.e., beach bathrooms. In my interviews for this story, no one indicated to me that you would need to expose yourself. I believe the aim of the change was to make it a crime to peer in public.
Thank you,
Dave
Finally: Looks like the news story isn't true, based on my conversation with Travis Kennedy of the Maine Legislature.
posted by Helen at 12:37 PM
111 Comments:
I wanted to do some reading before I posted. The first amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, apparently, I can say whatever I want, peaceably assemble, worship whatever I want and even complain to the government. But the first amendment doesn't really cover making a funny face at a child. That could be interpreted as "visual sexual aggression". Our beloved children will be able to point a finger at any one of us for anything at any time. This should make parents very happy but I am not so sure about the rest of us. Will parents be able to sue us in civil court after a "guilty of looking at my kid the wrong way" verdict in criminal court?
This law is ripe for abuse. People will be prosecuted because someone says they looked at a child wrong. Another step for the mommy/nanny state taking us closer to a totalitarianism.
The father, brother, mother, policeman should be able to just be allowed to smack lechers up side the head.
The next step will be making a man looking at adult women a crime. Feminists already have gotten "leering" to be considered sexual harassment on the job. Now they'll just criminalize it everywhere. If looking at a kid can be made illegal, so can looking at an adult.
Oh brother! But why should we be surprised?
Maybe someone should suggest a companion law forbidding preteen/teen girls from wearing provocative clothing, like pants with words like "juicy" emblazoned across the butt.
Dadvocate thinks this law is "ripe for abuse". Duh, please tell me what the correct use of the law is? There is no possible meaning of the term "visual sexual aggression". The law is completely arbitrary.
According to the article, the situation that spurred this piece of legislation was this:
Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms.
Did the man approach the children? Did he follow the children? Did he talk to the children? Apparently not. All he did was watch the children entering the community bathroom. I'm not so sure I have a problem with that even if it was Jeffrey Dahlmer or Son of Sam doing the watching.
Last I checked one can have any sort of sick twisted fantasy swirling around in their brain, but, as long as one doesn't act on their fantasies thinking shouldn't be a crime. At what point does supposedly protecting the children cross over to limiting the speech, movement and even standing around minding our own business of everyone else?
This isn't what I call "freedom".
The hatred of the male proceeds to destroy men and society. We men had better not look too long at any children: even if the kid(s) may be in trouble, the kid(s) may be causing trouble, or about to cause trouble. So I cannot sit on my stoop to watch my neighbor's kids run around? I better not even sit on my stoop lest my gaze fall upon them.
I can only assume that an 18 year old high school student better not look at the junior high schoolers or freshmen. There goes girl watching.
And how long before the age creeps up to 17 or under? And when will it apply to all women: this is a great was of stopping Mr. Wrong (i.e., poor or nice guy) from getting between her and Mr. Right.
Maybe we should let the religion of piece put women in burkas for several generations: at least we won't be accused of staring at them with lust or aggressively.
I stopped talking to children years ago- & I don't even make eye contact with them either. I avoid children like they are AIDS. I've come to hate the sight & sound of children because it fills me with dread and fear of a false accusation. I would feel more at ease around Hell's Angels bikers or ex-felons than I do around children.
Women can never know what it feels like- no, not the 'sadness'- no- the FEAR & the insanity of living in a world where it doesn't matter if you do not do anything wrong or if you are a good person and abide by the law and have no intention and never have done anything wrong and never will- it doesn't matter, you can go to jail for NOTHING- if you are a man. This is what we need to begin teaching boys when they are young- that right and wrong does not matter & that being a good person does not matter- that if you are male, you can go to jail because someone does not like you for nothing and that everything is a LIE.
I think we should just cut to the chase.
All males, once they are weaned from their mother will be locked in jail for the rest of the natural lives, with no chance of parole, for the crime of being male
Wow, people want a law for everything. The parents who noticed the behavior could have been responsible for taking care of it themselves.
They first could have asked the man what he was doing. If they did not like the answer, they could have stood between him and the view. Or they could have started loudly saying "Here is some pervert checking out the kids going to the bathroom."
Laws prevent very little, they are just a way to make someone uncomfortable if you can prove that they broke the law. Direct action is quicker and more likely to get results.
Who knows what this guy was doing, if he was a perv, the public attention would likely have moved him along just fine.
Trey
I find the juxtaposition of this item with the following one instructive.
WTF are we supposed to do?
Larry:
Make a phone call, write a letter, create a blog post, picket an advertiser, call the media, tell your friend who live in Maine to challenge the law.
"Make a phone call, write a letter, create a blog post, picket an advertiser, call the media, tell your friend who live in Maine to challenge the law."
Then he'll be publically accused of supporting 'child molesters.' Just watch.
Reality, there comes a point when you have to take a few risks in order to get anything accomplished.
Larry,
"WTF are we supposed to do?"
People are standing up to this nonsense. If you read the article by Glenn Sacks, he states:
"According to Leo Burnett Worldwide's 2005 "Man Study," four out of five men believe media portrayals of men are inaccurate. The study found that men care more about the way they are viewed than was generally believed.
When Kate Santich of the Orlando Sentinel did a feature on "men-as-idiots" advertising in 2004, she says she was "astounded" at the amount of mail she received, almost all of it critical of the way men are portrayed in ads. In a Washington Times article in January, advertising-industry journalist Todd Wasserman described getting a similar reaction to a recent article he wrote on anti-male ads.
This sentiment was reflected in the popularity of the highly publicized campaigns we've launched against advertising that is hostile to males. Several thousand protesters participated in both our 2004 campaign against Verizon's anti-father ad "Homework" and our 2007 campaign against Arnold Worldwide."
There is pushback on anti-male bias--and it can be effective.
I watch people come out of a bathroom sometimes. It's called "waiting for your wife". One tries not to look any pervier than necessary, but fundamentally if you're hanging out anywhere near the ladies room there's some chance some idiot will think you're up to something.
Larry,
If you are in Maine and the law passes you should accuse any government official who happens to be near a child of engaging in "visual sexual aggression" and demand that the police arrest them. After all, the law has to be enforced doesn't it? I would not recommend trying the same thing to police officials because this is not their fault. The merely have to enforce what the idiot politicians legislate.
This sounds an awful lot like the "Sunglass Industry Support Act of 2008" to me.
Every man will wear a pair of sunglasses so the direction of his eyes becomes unknowable.
See, this law should be blind to sex, so could you claim a woman is doing it.. We are told it takes a village, but apparently only the females can do anything.
Thinks about all the female perdophiles. This law is a thought crime. Remember when someone said give a person a dirty look, instead of going to HR, what happens now.. is this law is extended as it would be to looking at women..
When is a look, a leer, or a look of disdain?
As a single father of a 7yr old daughter, I have spent more than my share of time standing outside the womens' room waiting. I've noticed the stares and glares that I get from women who pass by or who go in and out of the bathroom. It's an uncomfortable feeling..honestly.
And what about the waiting-for-your five-year-old-daughter scenario? Been there, done that many times. It's not just making sure they don't walk about and get upset when you're not waiting, but to watch for obvious weirdos going in. (Yup, I'll profile the hell out of you when it comes to protecting my children, even if they do drive me crazy.)
I feel sorry for the first schlub that has to challenge this law. Somewhere in the future is going to be some person waiting for someone outside a restroom who is going to get accused of visual sexual aggression. He/she might even win in court but his/her picture and name will be pasted all over the Internet and his/her life will be ruined. Heck, it might even be me...or you. Time to cancel that scenic Maine vacation.
Have I been banned? Two comments disappeared (one with an error code I asn't able to capture.
Note that the same people don't seem to have a problem with Honor Killings in London and Toronto, where a father kills a daughter for wearing pants.
US laws are getting to the point that there is a real incentive for men to emigrate out of the US. With the growing demand for expat jobs in Asia (which do pay well), we could see this start to be a trend that grows beyond just a trickle.
will these children, be able to claim it. "ewww this person was looking at me funny.."
Arrest him.. I avoid children, but if i see them say torturing a cat, i would have to look at them, and then hopefully tell them off.
Yet with this law, you cant even look at the poor cat. This is the most dangerous law. Because it is all about perception. a thought crime. shall we avert our gazes when children are around, and women. lets pluck out the mans eyes so he shall not look.
How about keeping convicted felons and child abusers in jail?
Maybe we'd see a dramatic drop in child sexual abuse, if they kept child rapists and murderers in prison instead of letting them go free, after six months. Just a thought.
Bill - Of course, there is no correct use for this law. It is a law that will be used to intimidate and incarcerate men no matter what the wording may be.
A female legislator introduced the bill. In Ohio, a female legislator has introduced a bill for force parents to volunteer in schools. Forced volunteerism? A contradiction in terms.
As Larry pointed out the juxtaposition between this post and the previous is interesting. Maybe ad companies should focus on idiot law makers.
This article makes it sound more like it was prompted 'cause the guy kept following kids to the bathroom, and makes it sound like it's meant to stop stuff in bathrooms or dressing rooms. Still open to some abuse, but more circumscribed than what the other article says.
The next time I'm at a beach in LA and see a girl built like a supermodel wearing a string thong and tiny bikini top who happens to be 15 years old I'll be sure to turn myself in to the local authorities.
I'm all for busting the child molesters and perverts but "pervert" has been defined down to mean any man women feel like harassing. Isn't it funny how these types of laws can always easily be pushed in a direction that suits draconian political correctness? Gee, why is that?
Its called function creep johnannarbor. one law, finds a loophole, extends the law, until free speech freedom of all sorts are curtailed.
This is a thought crime, the parents THOUGHT a crime was going to happen. No evidence (from the latin that which must be seen). But there is NO exceptions in this law. And thats the problem. ok following sounds bad i agree there. but it doesnt say following, its says LOOKING. This is open to so much abuse that its definatly not funny.
"kmg said...
US laws are getting to the point that there is a real incentive for men to emigrate out of the US. With the growing demand for expat jobs in Asia (which do pay well)..."
kmg - Any thoughts on the best place to pursue these jobs because I might be interested. Seriously.
I think that this blog post is basically a false alarm, triggered by shoddy reporting in the original newspaper article.
As I read the bill, a person needs to expose his/her genitals in order to be guilty of a crime.
Here is the entire text of the bill:
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 17-A MRSA §256, sub-§1, ¶A, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, §1, is further amended to read:
A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age , in a public or private place, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;
Sec. 2. 17-A MRSA §256, sub-§1, ¶B, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, §1, is further amended to read:
B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age , in a public or private place, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;
The only new language that the bill inserts is the "in a public or private place" wording, which you can see in the mark-up HTML version on the state legislature web site:
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280027586&LD=2079&Type=1&SessionID=7
Maybe the reporter or legislator wanted to sell this as solving what they see as the problem of suspicious men hanging around children's bathroom doors (as the father of three daughters, I agree--that's me waiting for them to emerge and watching for perverts). But the information presented is so poor that the actual intentions are beyond determining, at least to me.
"Reality, there comes a point when you have to take a few risks in order to get anything accomplished."
You know, another reason men are such easy prey & do not 'stand up for ourselves' (supposedly) is not because a lack of concern.. it's BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING OUT ASSES OFF DAY & NIGHT & TOO TIRED TO DEAL WITH THIS S***. And who are we supporting? The very people who are doing this to us. Women.
Reality, if you choose to do nothing then expect nothing.
Well, this is a great excuse to stop going to kids dance and singing recitals, any children's plays, or even gymnastics. If any are held, the parents can only watch their own child. Can you see the havoc in demanding the arrest of entire audiences at children's activities.
Everybody will have to prove they are not practicing "visual sexual aggression".
Oh, and I cannot be a witness to criminal conduct by under 14 year-olds: that would mean I would be counter-sued by the kiddies' lawyers.
Some might enjoy the Polish movie Sexmission. It's about a future where men are abolished.
I just researched the statute to find out what this was all about, but now I see that Michael beat me to the punch. The reporter wrote an extremely vauge and misleading article. As someone who works regularly with bills and statutes, I can say that it is pretty typical for the press to misunderstand (or lazily overlook) the specifics of a statute.
Although I can understand why the term "visual sexual aggression" could set off alarm bells for anyone concerned about civil liberties and fairness, the statute itself is reasonable. You can only be arrested under this statute for exposing yourself to a child for the purpose of sexual gratification, or if you are peeping at a child's private parts for the purpose of sexual gratification. It seems odd to me that the Maine legislature felt it needed to clarify that this is an offense whether it ocucrs in public or not. The statute seems perfectly clear. Do we also need to specify that theft is still theft whether it occurs in public or private?
What I am still scratching my head about is the circumstances that led to the change in the bill. The article doesn't indicate that the alleged peeper was exposing himself or trying to get a glimpse of the children's genitals.
The solution is simple. Scowl and look away from all children. There's a Hell of an incentive.
In Ohio, a female legislator has introduced a bill for force parents to volunteer in schools. Forced volunteerism? A contradiction in terms.
Heh. Someone should ask her if she's heard of this thing called "The Constitution" and more specifically, Amendment 13:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Game. Set. Match.
One country, I think it is Ireland, is looking at a law banning all single adults rom being in parks containing childrens playgrounds.
And so was born the crime of "Looking creepy"
"kmg - Any thoughts on the best place to pursue these jobs because I might be interested. Seriously."
tweedburst,
I don't know what profession you are in, but I think the best approach would be to :
1) Find a target location. Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, Seoul, Taipei, Bangkok, etc. have a lot of American and European expats (although still a small fraction of the general population), and thus a good support network to help you adjust. HK and Singapore have very low income taxes. Australia is also a good country where masculinity is not frowned upon, and where cultural adjustment would be a non-issue.
2) Peruse the Alumni network of your Universities(s) to track down Alumnus who may be in these areas. Talk to Alumni who are willing to share information with you. If you have a sibling or good friend who is willing to give you the login to their own Alumni network websites, extract contacts from that University's network as well.
3) Ask these Alumni for good headhunters/recruiters, and work with them on getting interviews.
4) Dig up a good online message board that is populated with people who have already done this or are about to, and extract as much knowledge as you can.
5) Be prepared to take one or more trips to the city of your choice in which to interview/network. This is cheap if you get one interview where they fly you out, and then stay back to network with others.
6) It may be easy if you already work for a large corp in the US, so can transfer to their Asia offices internally. IBM, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Google, etc. already have thousands of employees across Asia, some of whom merely transferred internally from their US jobs at the same company.
7) Be fully prepared to learn the local language IF you choose a place other than India, HK, Singapore, or Australia. While both your job and your social life can suffice with English-only if you socialize only with other expats, you still miss a lot if you don't know English.
Hope this helps.
Larry,
Not sure why blogger didn't post your comments. It acts weird sometimes, I am unable to get on sometimes myself. Your last post got on so hopefully it is corrected now. You have certainly not been banned. Your comments are welcome here.
Michael and Margaret,
Thanks for the detective work. If the person is exposing himself, I can see the need for the statute but there is no indication of this, only that the person was peering and the article was alarmist: "Those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon."
The article should have included the information about exposure etc. to make it clear to those of us concerned about innocent "peerers" being swept up in such a law.
This is just the first step in a clever campaign leading ultimately to a national transgression called Male Felony Existence. Further definition is left to the reader.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/08/05/menino_boosts_patrols_after_girl_shot_in_park/
Boston police said they may move high-powered surveillance cameras used for security during the Democratic National Convention to parks considered hot spots for crime.
City Council President Michael Flaherty proposed banning adults from playgrounds unless they are accompanying children.
DWM. EWM?
I don't know how one could use a law banning exposing oneself inside a public restroom to a person fully clothed standing outside a public restroom. I can't even see how one could use any law to get someone to "move along" if they were standing in a public area not violating any law.
What can you do about it? Call Represenative Dawn Hill and tell her she's a freaking idiot:
Her official contact information, as listed on the Maine website, is as follows:
http://www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/dhill/
And a campaign page even includes a cell phone and home phone number:
http://janus.state.me.us/house/hsebios/hilld_.htm
What can you do about it? Call Represenative Dawn Hill and tell her she's a freaking idiot:
Her official contact information, as listed on the Maine website, is as follows:
http://www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/dhill/
And a campaign page even includes a cell phone and home phone number:
http://janus.state.me.us/house/hsebios/hilld_.htm
"I can't even see how one could use any law to get someone to "move along" if they were standing in a public area not violating any law."
Look around the VRWC blogs and see if you can find mention of the folks at one of the monuments (Lincoln?) this past weekend who where silently dancing. Went to jail, I think.
(Yup, I'll profile the hell out of you when it comes to protecting my children)
There it is- that redneck attitude that generates all of this hysteria. I've got children too- they're grown up now, but I always kept in mind that when in public that other people did not ASK for me to impose my children on THEM. It does not 'take a village' & I don't want ANYTHING to do with your children or anyone else's children... ever- for any reason at all.
Also, try emailing the editor who loosed this report on the world and tell them their report was misleading.
Larry: I looked it up, it was the Jefferson Monument and the offending officers were the National Park Police down in DC. I've had an unpleasant brush with them a few years back. The law and the DC National Park Police are two separate entities, you know, homeland security and all that.
Imposing children on people....
One of my favorite quotes from my daughters--not sure which one said if first or at what age--upon being assaulted by a screaming out-of-control kid at a restaurant.
Nobody had to put up with _ME_ doing that, do do I have to put up with it?
Well lets give it enough time. Playgrounds will become 'Male Free Zones'. Considering the preponderance of sexual assault is committed by men. It can be the only conclusion of a law like this.
Is this where we want to go America??
This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?
I don't know about Maine, but I live in Texas and I don't care. Throw them in jail.
Good grief!
You can't teach without having
the 'look of doom' to impose
on the little darlings from time
to time.
Paul: Throw who in jail?
"Well lets give it enough time. Playgrounds will become 'Male Free Zones'. Considering the preponderance of sexual assault is committed by men. It can be the only conclusion of a law like this."
One of the comments of mine that got eaten was a lengthy one where I related things that happened while my young ones were growing up. (Probably just as well that it got eaten--probably put myself in danger.)
But that was a time when the big hurt on men was about not spending time with their kids.
So I worked nights so I could go places with them.
Now I'll go to jail if I do.
And what if I am the rare male that has custody of his kid?
Are the Shakers still in business?
"I don't know about Maine, but I live in Texas and I don't care. Throw them in jail."
Well, OKEDOKEE, Jethro. I hope you look cross-eyed a stupid kid & get thrown in jail for nothing. That's the problem with you rednecks- you're so slow you can't even think one step ahead.
Maybe someone should suggest a companion law forbidding preteen/teen girls from wearing provocative clothing, like pants with words like "juicy" emblazoned across the butt.
I want to sell t-shirts that say "Dad, Mom, if you let them dress that way, don't complain when I leer!"
I saw a t-shirt last week on a large man that said, "If I want your opinion I will beat it out of you". Just like "juicy" the message gives you some idea on what is going on in the brain of the wearer.
Boston police said they may move high-powered surveillance cameras used for security during the Democratic National Convention to parks considered hot spots for crime.
You can expect gay activists to complain that this is targeting gays who cruise for anonymous sex.
Paul: Throw who in jail?
The men leering at children.
but paul, whats a leer and whats a look.. who says whats a leer.. looking for more than 3 seconds.. or if its less.. or its ok if you do it with your left eye but not your right..
How do you know when someone is "leering"? What defines leering? How do you prove it? Who decides who is a leerer? If you look at my child, any child, can I get you thrown in jail for it?
Helen,
I just stared at your picture for 10 seconds. Thank God you are a beautiful woman above the age of majority or the Maine police would be at my door.
There it is- that redneck attitude that generates all of this hysteria
That's not a redneck attitude, it's common sense. If when my daughters were younger and in a restroom and a cross dressing man attempted to enter that restroom room, I'd stop him. I fully assume you would have done the same and would do the same to your grandchildren. I'm not asking for a law--I made that pretty clear--but I'm not saying we should be a bunch of idiots either.
You know this law will only, with rare exception, be applied to men. When women behave inappropriately sexually towards minors people paint them as mental.
Take the case of Debra Lafave. Had she been a man, she would be in prison, but no one would question how a man could be attracted to a teenage girl. When it was a woman, however, everyone seemed to reject the notion that a woman could be attracted to a six foot tall male.
Glad my kids are grown now, and I don't have to wait outside for my girls or my son to return from a public restroom. When my kids were inside, I glared at every adult of either sex walking into either bathroom.
Perhaps this law being proposed in Maine is only to get the representative with this looney idea in the news because she's running for some other office somewhere down the road. Crazier things have been done to get attention, to get a head above the crowd. Hell, I think Hillary is nuts now. There is absolutely nothing she will not say or do to get in the oval office.
Anyone outside of Maine ever heard of Dawn Hill before this? I haven't.
Br549: Here is the text of the bill. It has more to do with people exposing themselves and ogling naked kiddies than visual sexual aggression. The title of the bill, visual sexual aggression, is a terrible choice and misleading.
@cham: "The title of the bill, visual sexual aggression, is a terrible choice and misleading."
I agree with that. Even if it the text is good, it should fail for that reason alone.
I don't think this law is necessary. Last I checked, ogling naked kiddies and flashing oneself is already illegal. Seems the biggest purpose for more laws outlawing what is already outlawed is more so a politicial can toot their own horn than to accomplish any real good.
If this is the direction Western society is heading, then What.The.Heck. What complaint do we have with the Islamists? I'm really starting to think their Sharia law could be no worse.
I've backed Dubya 100% on the WOT and I think the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan have done a wonderful job. But for what? So the "leadership" at home can turn our laws into a laughing stock? So people will get arrested for keeping an eye on the kids?
The world is watching this and they KNOW (not think, KNOW) this is foolish and that a people who put up with it are either weak, stupid or a bunch of ninnies. And this is just the latest example of many.
As a straight, white, Christian male, I'm already a second class citizen in this country and assumed to be guilty of whatever I get accused of. Would it be worse under the Muslims?
I'm starting to think we NEED the Islamists to turn our culture upside down, drop a few walls on the sexual deviates, put Dawn Hill and her ilk in burqas, and send them home. Hate to say it, but they make more sense to me than she does.
The old bespectacled Imam on TV back in 2003 may have been right, "We're coming to help the West.". Lord knows, we need it.
Dudley
Does everything have to be a felony?
I'm pretty sure most of us are felons by now, although we probably don't know it.
State Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York. is a greater threat to our freedoms than all foreign threats.
What is wrong with that woman?
Simple pandering to a constituent?
Her action is illogical and goes against much of what made America a half-way decent country.
The female politico's attempts at thought control and enslaving males makes me demand she undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if she should be allowed to continue as an elected representative.
If the law does pass, I hope Maine citizens follow that whacky deluded female and report to authorities every time her gaze lingers longer than a few moments upon children.
Please, somebody try to determine to what extent that politico is mentally imbalanced since I can not conceive of anybody in their right mind even consider attempting to pass such a law.
Surely only a paranoid and/or delusional mind could conceive of such a bizzare statute.
@obbop:
You're correct that her position is illogical. It is feelings based.
All decent people know that only a scumbag would stare at children with fantasies, and it makes all of us sick to our stomachs. It is this feeling that makes her pursue the legislation. Problem is, we just can't punish people for what we think they are thinking.
I once knew a woman who admitted she wished her husband would get killed in a car accident. Does that mean she should be charged with violent aggression? of course not.
Look,, this is just stupid. Because we do not have the guts to do the right thing,, like real justice for sexual perverts,, we think up stupid idiotic ideas like laws against staring?? Real justice would be the death sentence or life without parole for any child rapist, predator or kidnapper! That would be a law I would support! This is just stupidity and dangerous! Taking people to jail because they stare is insane!! What constitutes a stare?? What if a child appears to be doing something dangerous and a person is looking to be safe?? What about playground monitors?? Would they need a special staring license?? Would you not have to engage in staring yourself to determine if the other person was staring??? People have lost their minds.
Can I still sing the old 60's song "I'm a girl watcher" if this law passes?
@lmtravelrep: "Can I still sing the old 60's song "I'm a girl watcher" if this law passes?"
Sure, if you're Bill Clinton.
This appears to be a more recent version of the amended bill? From the center part of the Janus page, "Adopted Amendments."
Sir, I must inform you that I'm arresting you on the charge of "visual sexual aggression". Yeah, Karen, I need an ID on a Mr Ray Charles...
Humphrey Bogart is guilty. He admited it.
"Here's looking at you kid."
One day, in the not so distant future, one lawyer has his work cut out for him....
"Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client denies the charge of visual sexual aggression on the grounds that only a 'sick freak' would have a sexual attraction to children...
...We are also prepared to present evidence of his well-known misanthropy...
...My client does not deny that he was looking in the general direction of the children with an aggressive contenance...but maintains that since there was no sexual intent, that his has been falsely charged...."
Some days are kind of fun in the culture war.
Aw, you know those kids are just ASKING for it.
Whoever dreamed this insanity up should be drug through the streets until dead.
The thought police cometh.
This strikes me as coming from the same kind of people that would charge a 4 year old with sexual harrasment for hugging a teacher.
Some people are simply nuts. The sad thing is that too many join in the insanity while too few stand against it.
"That's the problem with you rednecks- you're so slow you can't even think one step ahead."
Actually, we just talk funny, we don't think funny.
Trey
"That's the problem with you rednecks- you're so slow you can't even think one step ahead."
Actually, we just talk funny, we don't think funny."
No, I've encoutered your type before & you DO think 'funny' (everyone think Bush)- that also explains why your attitudes are so bizarre on this blog- why your responses never make any sense & why you're unemployable. Everyone knows 'redneck' is just another way of saying 'trailer trash.' (Even if you live in a real house- what do you call trailer trash in a real house? Trailer trash in real house). That's right folks- our president is trailer trash.
DADvocate: thanks for summing up my position so well.
I'd just like to add, adults accompanying children out into public are responsible for their safety.
It's a little tricky to figure out where the amendment text is, so I thought I would drop part of it in a comment.
For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person (in a private place), not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 14 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance.
There is a similar establishing a different penalty if the person is under 12.
There is an indication that the phrase 'in a private place' may be dropped which seems to support the contention of the reporter that the law could be used to prosecute an observer who was in a public area. I'm not sure I buy the idea that it could be used against someone loitering outside a public restroom unless there was some reason to believe that they could see bare flesh, since observation is not a person in general but specific uncovered areas of the body.
"responsible"
What is this word "responsible"?
You some kind of old fart or something?