Are you kidding? March 16, 2007 9:09 AM Subscribe

Is this suitable for AskMe?
posted by fourcheesemac to Etiquette/Policy at 9:09 AM (355 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

I'm as pro-free-speech as they come, but it seems to me this skirts a legal line by asking if it's a good idea to break the law. Granted, the poster appears unclear on the illegality, and the illegality might be disputable, but how is it different (except in potential seriousness) from asking "is it a good idea to download pirated software from xxx.pirated.software.ru?"
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:11 AM on March 16, 2007

He is asking if it is OK and legal. The answers he is getting are that it isn't OK, likely illegal, and he shouldn't do it.

What is your problem, 4CM?
posted by Meatbomb at 9:18 AM on March 16, 2007

Granted, the poster appears unclear on the illegality, and the illegality might be disputable...

Seems like you answered our own question. What's your concern?

By the way, when someone starts a sentence with "I'm as pro-free-speech as they come, but..." You know that they're going to advocate censoring someone. Just like when someone says "I don't mean to be rude, but..." you know they're most certainly about to say something rude.
posted by Gamblor at 9:19 AM on March 16, 2007 [6 favorites]

Yes.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:19 AM on March 16, 2007

"Is it a good idea to download pirated software" and "is it legal to download pirated software" are both legitimate questions for askme, as is this one. The line is crossed when one asks, "I know it's illegal to download pirated software; how can I do it?" That is not what this question is asking.

What "legal line," precisely, do you feel is being skirted here? Because I don't see any.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:19 AM on March 16, 2007

He's not asking if it's a good idea to break the law, he's asking if he would be breaking the law. The difference is the same as that between 'I'm about to break the law, should I do it?', and 'If I did this would I be breaking the law?'

On preview: yeah, what they said.
posted by Robot Rowboat at 9:21 AM on March 16, 2007

Looks like an honest question to me? I mean, no, it's very likely illegal, but that's the specific question he's asking, no?

This is more like an ignorant person asking if it's okay to send someone a copy of the game he just bought, not asking how to do it.
posted by Malor at 9:22 AM on March 16, 2007

You know that they're going to advocate censoring someone. Just like when someone says "I don't mean to be rude, but..." you know they're most certainly about to say something rude.

How was I rude? I was exceedingly polite. You wnat rude? Screw you, schmuck.

I believe the thread established, quickly, that the proposed course of action is in fact illegal.

I shouldn't have bothered. If people are comfortable with AskMe as a place where child molesters are enabled, fine with me. After all, lots of people around here also think it's perfectly fine to steal music and software and trade tips for doing so too.

If you fail to see the line crossed here, it's your problem. It has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. But I give up.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:24 AM on March 16, 2007

Hahaha, seriously?
posted by nathancaswell at 9:24 AM on March 16, 2007

flame.... out.... flame.... out.... IT HAS BEEN SO LONG!
posted by nathancaswell at 9:25 AM on March 16, 2007

How was I rude? I was exceedingly polite.

analogy |əˈnaləjē| noun ( pl. -gies) a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:27 AM on March 16, 2007

I have no intention of flaming out, nathancaswell. By "I give up," I mean I give up on this callout, not Metafilter. But maybe someone should forward the thread to, say, NBC's Dateline's "To Catch A Predator." That would be good for Metafilter. And don't tell me you wouldn't be embarrassed for this site if the thread in question were to become a cause celebre in the media.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:28 AM on March 16, 2007

Did you really just call Kemayo a child molester?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:28 AM on March 16, 2007

This is the point where you flame out, fourcheesemac.
posted by Justinian at 9:29 AM on March 16, 2007

fourcheesemac, this issue appears to have you really riled up- 3 comments in the thread with no responders in-between, and now the MeTa. And I'm not really sure why, considering, as you said, "I believe the thread established, quickly, that the proposed course of action is in fact illegal. And since that was the question, it was answered, and that's what we do. Yay AskMeta.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:29 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sorry, Justinian. I have not flamed out yet.

And yes, hosted from Uranus, I did -- prospectively, if he (?) goes through with this.

Amazing. I really should have known to expect this.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:30 AM on March 16, 2007

Give in to your anger, it makes you powerful.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:30 AM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

this issue appears to have you really riled up-

Why yes, Pink, it has me riled up. That is why I posted to MeTa, as is usually the case in a callout around here.

How's that AirBorne working out?
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:31 AM on March 16, 2007

I have no intention of flaming out, nathancaswell. By "I give up," I mean I give up on this callout, not Metafilter.

I'm confused. Are you still in the process of giving up, or has the giving up now been completed?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:32 AM on March 16, 2007 [5 favorites]

It's not that you are being misunderstood, 4CM. It's that you are being a moron.

NBC Dateline: a bunch of people on Metafilter have advised some guy not to send erotic fiction to a 17 year old.

Somehow, I don't think they'll run with that.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:33 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

fourcheesemac, you have the moral and legal sensitivity of a toadstool.
posted by chinston at 9:33 AM on March 16, 2007

fourcheesemac: you can't be that dense. this guy was asking a serious question about whether something was illegal, and guess what? it was answered. ask.me works! considering how riled up you're getting over nothing, are you projecting or what? lighten the f' up.
posted by Stynxno at 9:34 AM on March 16, 2007

Wait — we're telling someone not to break the law, and you're scared it's gonna make us look bad?
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:34 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

The asker phrase their question pretty clearly and non-creepily, and got a fairly resoundingly This Isn't Wise responses along with some This Is Yucky stuff as well. It seems like it proceeded pretty fairly, and I don't see where "child molesters [were] enabled", unless you are operating from the unshakable assumption that the poster must be a child molester.

There was actually a lazy accusation of outright pedophilia at one point in the thread, to which Kemayo responded with calm restraint; that was a lot more out-of-line for AskMe than a touchy question on legality and taboos. It's slightly icky territory, but we wander into all sorts of icky territory on AskMe now and then, and Kemayo handled this pretty reasonably.

I'm sorry it squicks you out, fourcheesemac, but I think your squick is an overreaction in this case. The thread was overwhelmingly negative in its response to the question.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:35 AM on March 16, 2007

No, Meatbomb, but they well might try to track down the OP and set up a sting.

I asked, politely, if this was OK. That so many people are so heated up in defense of the OP is really striking. I'm not flaming out or enraged. The rage is coming from the defenders of the thread here, and it's interesting to speculate why so many people would rise so angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:35 AM on March 16, 2007

Not only is that question OK on askme, I suggest the rest of us flag fourcheesemac's comment in the thread as noise or a derail, so that it will be deleted from it.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:36 AM on March 16, 2007

Well, I'm healthy and happy, and you're flaming out, so overall, I'd say it's working pretty well.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:36 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Thank you cortex, for a reasonable response. It does squick me out, and I think it would squick out any parent, in case the flamethrowers around here are wondering where my outrage comes from.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:36 AM on March 16, 2007

And yes, hosted from Uranus, I did -- prospectively, if he (?) goes through with this.

Holy Living Jesus. Are you serious? So you're saying if Kemayo sends the stories, he's molested the child? From another state?
posted by Robot Rowboat at 9:37 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Feel free, Dave Faris. I'd rather not be represented in that thread in any case. It took me a few reads to get the proper squickiness effect.

Pink, where am I flaming out? I have been measured in every response here.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:38 AM on March 16, 2007

Wow, I stepped away from the keyboard for ten minutes and look what I miss. Thanks for the lesson on civility.

censoring: to suppress or delete as objectionable.

fourcheesemac, your reading comprehension skills, like your interpersonal skills, could use some polishing.
posted by Gamblor at 9:38 AM on March 16, 2007

Robot -- Under Oregon law (if you read the thread): yes.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:38 AM on March 16, 2007

The rage is coming from the defenders of the thread here, and it's interesting to speculate why so many people would rise so angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor.

hahaha. you really can't read, can you?

you're the one who took offense at comment #2 and it was a pretty mild snark. you're more emotionally invested in this callout than that statement above implies. i repeat, lighten up and take the question for what it is - you seriously can't be assuming that the original poster is a child molestor beecause if you are, i have a bridge i want to sell you.
posted by Stynxno at 9:38 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

You write:

Yes, I'm talking about censoring someone, except that "censorship" only exists, with respect to free speech, when it is imposed by the government. This is a private website. Matt can delete anything he wants and it is NEVER "censorship."

Idiot.

Ho-kay, let's get a few things straight here. Your grasp of constitutional law is impressive, since you know that only suppression of speech by the government violates the First Amendment, and private entities can do whatever they want. But "to censor" has a meaning that is broader than the narrow American legal prohibition against same. If mathowie were to ban all discussion of, say, abortion from the site, sure that would be censorship. Of course, we could argue about whether that's a good or a bad thing, while it's true that in general, the term "to censor" has pejorative connotations that may not always be warranted. But still. It would be censorship.
posted by chinston at 9:39 AM on March 16, 2007

Measured????
posted by nathancaswell at 9:39 AM on March 16, 2007

You are worked up, fourcheesemac, but you do have a point.

It's easy to imagine some predator claiming 'I was just trying to get some feedback on a chapter in my new novel-- that's why I was offering that 15yr old $10 to read it and tell me how it made her feel!'
posted by jamjam at 9:39 AM on March 16, 2007

If people are comfortable with AskMe as a place where child molesters are enabled, fine with me.

There is not a single response in that thread which "enables child molesters."

If you fail to see the line crossed here, it's your problem.

If you fail to see the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it's your problem.

And oh, sorry, you were accusing me of "censoring somebody, not being "rude." Yes, I'm talking about censoring someone, except that "censorship" only exists, with respect to free speech, when it is imposed by the government.

You are confusing first amendment violations with the broader category of censorship. The first amendment outlaws censorship by the government. If you had said "deleting this thread would not be a first amendment violation, because the first amendment only restricts government actions," you would be correct. "Censorship" is a broader concept - sometimes done by the government (generally illegal in the U.S., per the first amendment), sometimes by private entities (generally legal, and sometimes even morally defensible).

From m-w.com,

censor, vt: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable .

Note how it doesn't say anything about who is doing the censoring.

it's interesting to speculate why so many people would rise so angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor.

No one here is rising angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor. Many people are rising angrily in defense of a question about criminal solicitation of a minor. See the difference? I can be opposed to the legalization of marijuana without being opposed to the discussion of the legalization of marijuana.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:40 AM on March 16, 2007 [4 favorites]

and it's interesting to speculate why so many people would rise so angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor

I am calmly, with a beatific smile, rising up in defense of the community's right to advise the OP that he not criminally solicit a minor.

Read, 4CM. READ.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:40 AM on March 16, 2007

Gamblor, quoting Merriam-Webster doesn't make the point for me. Or do you think it's censorship whenever Matt deletes a thread? When opposed to the phrase "free speech," in philosophical terms, the term "censorship" refers to government suppression of speech. No one has a right to say anything they want anywhere they want. No one.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:40 AM on March 16, 2007

I don't buy the Original Poster's story, or at least his framing of the question. I think he wants to send dirty dirty stories to a 17-year-old, but I'm doubting it's for proofreading.
posted by bshort at 9:42 AM on March 16, 2007

And oh, sorry, you were accusing me of "censoring somebody, not being "rude." Yes, I'm talking about censoring someone, except that "censorship" only exists, with respect to free speech, when it is imposed by the government. This is a private website. Matt can delete anything he wants and it is NEVER "censorship."

Idiot.

But you were the one who brought up free speech, LOL! Were you talking about free speech in the sense of "censoring" the asker by deleting the thread? (In which case, direct your little outburst above at yourself). Or were you talking about free speech as it applies to the idea that sexually explicit text sent to a minor would be illegal? (In which case, that does have to do with both free speech and the government, so, your little rant above doesn't really apply).
posted by lampoil at 9:43 AM on March 16, 2007

Fourcheesemac, from the AskMe question: And I thought we had a policy against enabling illegal activities on AskMe, to boot.

No, I don't think that is the case. We do keep hearing from people who assume there is, or try to encourage one. I wish they would stop.
posted by Chuckles at 9:43 AM on March 16, 2007

it's interesting to speculate why so many people would rise so angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm anti-child-molester. I realize that may not win me any popularity contests, but goshdarnit, that's how I feel.
posted by Gamblor at 9:43 AM on March 16, 2007 [6 favorites]

It does seem strange to choose someone presumably still in high school to "proofread" anything.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:44 AM on March 16, 2007 [4 favorites]

I don't buy the Original Poster's story, or at least his framing of the question. I think he wants to send dirty dirty stories to a 17-year-old, but I'm doubting it's for proofreading.

yeah, it's dubious but you gotta take the question for what it is and support that asking such a question is okay. fourcheesemac is upset that the question even exists but that's pretty moronic.
posted by Stynxno at 9:45 AM on March 16, 2007

"It does seem strange to choose someone presumably still in high school to 'proofread' anything."

Maybe all the kids from "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth-Grader" were busy this week.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:45 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

What? No one has paged languagehat yet?
posted by sequential at 9:46 AM on March 16, 2007

If mathowie were to ban all discussion of, say, abortion from the site, sure that would be censorship.

No, it would be a site policy. Since the charge of censorship was leveled at me in response to my saying I was "pro-free-speech," basically to accuse me of being a hypocrite, the distinction has meaning. Yeah, sure, deleting a thread meets some broad, general sense of "censorship." But not the sense implied in the charge of hypocrisy.

And I misread Gamblor's analogy, and said so and corrected myself immediately, so all the gotchas about that are silly.

OK, over and out. Cortex has spoken and I am really not interested in an insult war any longer. I said nothing insulting in my callout. I asked a question. You want to fight? Enjoy yourselves.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:46 AM on March 16, 2007

One day a man and a woman walked into the doctor’s office. They said to the doctor, "Will you watch us have sex?" and the doctor answered, "Ok, go right ahead." the doctor watched and found nothing wrong. He took the $32 from them and sent them out.

The next week the same man and woman came back to the doctor and had him watch them have sex again. The doctor saw nothing wrong, took their $32 and sent them out.

The next week they came back again. The doctor watched them have sex, saw nothing wrong and finally asked, "there’s nothing wrong with the way you have sex. What am i suppose to be looking for?"

the man answered, "Nothing. We can’t have sex at my house because of my wife. We can’t have sex at her house because of her husband. The motel charges $60 for us to stay there, you only chare $32 and medicare pays for all but $8 of it.

*waves to all the 17-year-olds in the audience*
*feels slight twinge of guilt that Matt is going to jail for enabling molestation*
*shrugs*
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:46 AM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

Bah. Clearly not going to happen. Well back to my day.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:47 AM on March 16, 2007

Gamblor, quoting Merriam-Webster doesn't make the point for me.

Egads, man. You started off with name calling, you're posting a comment a minute, and now you're arguing against dictionary definitions. Please consider stepping away from the keyboard for a moment or two.
posted by Gamblor at 9:47 AM on March 16, 2007

OK, over and out.

Doh! I had such high hopes. Then again, don't all good flame outs include a line like this?
posted by sequential at 9:50 AM on March 16, 2007

yeah, it's dubious but you gotta take the question for what it is and support that asking such a question is okay. fourcheesemac is upset that the question even exists but that's pretty moronic.

Yeah, I'm with you on that, asking questions should be fine, but there's something about the poster's question that just doesn't ring true.

I can see why fourcheesemac is squicked out.
posted by bshort at 9:51 AM on March 16, 2007

It is too bad really, because fourcheesemac gave a really great answer:

And it's not at all like the same 17 year old walking into a bookstore and choosing something to read. A writer and an editor form a relationship. Any reasonable parent would see that as potentially a recruitment strategy. Unlikely they'd see it the same way if they caught their kid reading an Anne Rice novel.

posted by Chuckles at 9:51 AM on March 16, 2007

One last point: to be clear, the "free speech" I mention in my first comment refers to the OP's freedom to write what s/he wants, and send it to anyone s/he wants if it's legal to do so. It has nothing to do with the right to post something on AskMe, which does not exist as a "right" at all.

Gamblor, I apologize for calling you a name. I took your comment as a charge of hypocrisy (thus an indirect bit of name calling), and mistakenly, as an accusation of rudeness. The former still seems to be true, but I acknowledge the latter was not true and that I therefore reacted inappopriately to it.

Now, I'm done. Stepping away from the keyboard, even.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:52 AM on March 16, 2007

"You want to fight? Enjoy yourselves."

Wait. I thought we were here to enable child molesters. Or is that just me?

Did I just say that out loud?
posted by chinston at 9:55 AM on March 16, 2007

fourcheesemac: don't go yet! Did you know that the OP also circumcised his cats after dosing them with LSD? And that he hates fat people?
posted by Meatbomb at 9:55 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Won't anybody think about the Invisible Pink Unicorns?
posted by SteveInMaine at 9:55 AM on March 16, 2007

Weird... There was a deleted comment in that thread. parmanparman, I think, made a comment about a disturbing website linked in the poster's profile, but by the time I read the comment, there were no links in that profile. Now the comment is gone. Anyone have any idea what was up with that?

parmanparman made a fairly allegation-y comment about the website; Kemayo replied in turn with an explanation; parmanparman acknowledge that and retracted his allegation. None of it was really kosher for the thread: adios.

If Kemayo took down the link from their profile after that, I'm not surprised.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:56 AM on March 16, 2007

Hey, no hard feelings. Apology accepted.
posted by Gamblor at 9:57 AM on March 16, 2007

Thanks Gamblor. I'm a dad. This bothered me as a dad. I'm sorry if I got too worked up about it. I still think it's gross.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:02 AM on March 16, 2007

There may not be a flameout but I know have a serious craving for four cheese macaroni.
posted by Lola_G at 10:02 AM on March 16, 2007

I defy you to NOT think of an Invisible Pink Unicorn. Right now. Don't do it!
posted by hermitosis at 10:04 AM on March 16, 2007

Oops, meant to hit preview. DAMN! (I know I now have a serious...ahh f' it). Crawling back into the hole I crawled out from...
posted by Lola_G at 10:04 AM on March 16, 2007

I asked, politely, if this was OK

Yeah, maybe, but you were being disingenous at best.
By titling this "Are you kidding?" you had already presumed it was not ok.
posted by juv3nal at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2007

Clearly I need me some 17 year olds to do my spellchecking.
posted by juv3nal at 10:07 AM on March 16, 2007

Yeah I think I mention in the second answer, that this is exactly the kind of behavior that would result in a FoxNews style cyber sting. The thread goes on to raise all of the other points you mentioned, from “This is illegal/creepy” to people offering full-grown adult editing services to the fiction in question. If you Honestly believed to OP was going to do something immoral would you rather they NOT asked?
posted by French Fry at 10:08 AM on March 16, 2007

I just can't figure out how you remembered the Airborne thing 3 months later. I had remembered the general fight, but not who I was fighting with. Way to hold a grudge, dude. THAT'S something to be proud of "as a Dad".
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:09 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

Here's a simple guide to what's ok and what's not ok to post as a question to askmefi...

----------------

OK: Would what I'm thinking of doing be illegal?

Not Ok: What I'm doing is illegal, how can I not get caught?

----------------

Feel free to clip that out at the dash marks and post it to your refrigerator.
posted by drezdn at 10:10 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I find it funny that when things bother parents, they feel free to label entire communities sexual predators. By "funny" I mean "abusive and shitty."

I also find it funny when people come into a discussion, fists swinging, and then progressively back off, all the while denying that they ever threw a punch and accusing all the black-eyed bleeders of hypersensitivity and offensiveness. By "funny" I mean "callow and obnoxious."
posted by breezeway at 10:11 AM on March 16, 2007 [23 favorites]

I think the kindest construction of the original question would have to involve some doubt that the OP is aware of his or her actual motives; the most severe a conviction that the OP is attempting to use AskMe to establish lack of criminal intent before proceeding to act criminally, with full intent.
posted by jamjam at 10:14 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

It seems fourcheesemac is assuming the OP has shady intent, that the question isn't to be taken at face value, which I think is a reasonable reading of the question. But it's not the only reasonable reading of the question. Another reasonable reading is that the question is exactly what it claims to be.
posted by scottreynen at 10:18 AM on March 16, 2007

Hey breezeway, I think your comment was funny and also an accurate description of what went on here, and by funny and an accurate description of what went on here I mean funny and an accurate description of what went on here.
posted by micayetoca at 10:19 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

Some of you seem to be really spoiling for a flame war with me. Not gonna happen. But despite my desire for closure, healing, and kumbaya-ness, a few points do require a response. I want to make sure I'm understood, because this was a very serious callout.

1) Pink, I don't hold a grudge against you at all. I just have a better memory than you, (as a dad). You're the one expressing anger about it, not me. I was teasing you. I think you're a great poster and I regret being rude to you in that thread. I get over-exercised about alternative medicine topics. I'm sorry about that, and I've regretted it ever since.

2) So, breezway, you're saying that just because parents don't like it, we shouldn't have community standards or laws governing sexual relationships between adults and minors? Just making sure I heard that right. Damn those breeder moralists.

And lastly, I haven't backed away from anything. I stand by my disgust at the post itself, and think it makes AskMe look bad. That's my opinion, and I have my free speech rights too.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:20 AM on March 16, 2007

I just can't figure out how you remembered the Airborne thing 3 months later. I had remembered the general fight, but not who I was fighting with. Way to hold a grudge, dude. THAT'S something to be proud of "as a Dad".

Wow. I found that exchange. What a read. Just wow.
posted by FlamingBore at 10:21 AM on March 16, 2007

So, breezway, you're saying that just because parents don't like it, we ...

Stop it. You don't speak for this dad.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:24 AM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

Hey, no problem. We can put it all behind us. I figured the comment up-thread was a continuation of the Airborne anger two (not three) months ago. I still think it works though, dammit! But thanks for the apology. And if you're ever in New York for a meetup, we are going to drink a glass together and you will see THE POWER! THE POWER!!!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:24 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

So, breezway, you're saying that just because parents don't like it, we shouldn't have community standards or laws governing sexual relationships between adults and minors? Just making sure I heard that right.

fourcheesemac, you are (perhaps unintentionally) hilarious.
posted by chinston at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2007

OK, Uranus, I'll amend: "just because MOST parents don't like" [laws against sexual predation of minors'] . . . excuse me.

If we're going to be sticklers about the literal meanings here, you're saying you're ok with adults sending pornography to minors, even though you're a parent. Fair enough. I don't think that's a majority position, but you are entitled to hold it.

And bear in mind that the OP has already engaged in conversation, or so the question implies, with this "editor." Depending on the content of that conversation, a law may have already been broken.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2007

Pink, thanks so much. I've felt guilty about losing it with you every time I've passed the AirBorne display at my local RiteAid.. (We're neighbors.) I'm glad it works for you.

chinston, I'm glad to amuse you.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:29 AM on March 16, 2007

I'm a dad. This bothered me as a dad. I'm sorry if I got too worked up about it. I still think it's gross.

I'm a dad. This did not bother me as a dad. I wish for my daugther to have a safe and happy sex life and recognize I'm not the final judge of when that begins (dammit). I just dont' want to hear about it, other than she's dating x and he makes her happy.

Let them go and live their life.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:29 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I haven't backed away from anything. I stand by my disgust at the post itself, and think it makes AskMe look bad.

Maybe something like this would have been a better name for the MeTa post. Because I can dig being creeped out by that reading of the OP. I think, as we can see, people get pretty agro about the what Can and Can't get posted here and there questions.
I just see this more as an issue of opinion than site policy.
posted by French Fry at 10:33 AM on March 16, 2007

OK, Uranus, I'll amend: "just because MOST parents don't like" [laws against sexual predation of minors']

I'm definitely typing too fast. The literal meaning of my amendment is: most parents don't like adults sending explicit materials to minors. We do like laws against that. Some parents may disagree that this is important to legislate. That's their right, of course. But in this case, I don't see how parents have a different interest than the rest of society in protecting minors from sexual predators. Is that clear?
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:33 AM on March 16, 2007

Now, I'm done. Stepping away from the keyboard, even.

soon thereafter

And lastly, I haven't backed away from anything.

ha ha!
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 10:33 AM on March 16, 2007

I just see this more as an issue of opinion than site policy.

On second thought those may be the same thing ;)
posted by French Fry at 10:34 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

If we're going to be sticklers about the literal meanings here, you're saying you're ok with adults sending pornography to minors, even though you're a parent.

Yeah. If kids want porn they should do what we did, find it in the woods, or do a 3-second Google. (How else are we supposed to learn about sex, really?)
posted by jonmc at 10:36 AM on March 16, 2007

Is that clear?

I wasn't trying to nitpick anything's literal meaning. I took your earlier statements "as a dad" to mean something like "You people just don't understand because you're not parents. If you were, you'd agree with me." When you codified that reading by saying "we", I felt it was time to correct the record.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:39 AM on March 16, 2007

M.C. Lo-Carb! beat me to it. My favorite part of any flameout thread is when the poster repeatedly promises that he's making his last comment, but keeps on coming back. The irresistible lure of the grey.
posted by amro at 10:40 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Depending on the content of that conversation, a law may have already been broken.

That is amazing. You are fucking crazy.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:43 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

jonmc, you can't go talking about that without linking for the newbies. (Caution: involves minors and pornography!)
posted by mendel at 10:43 AM on March 16, 2007

No? Nothing. Ok, back to work. I was still holding out hope.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:45 AM on March 16, 2007

jonmc: my point is that the OP (kemayo) is seeking to form a relationship with this 17 year old, as an editor, mediated by explicit material. That's not at all the same, as I said in the AskMe thread, as a minor accessing pornography on her/his own.

On reflection, maybe it's not that I'm a dad, but that I'm a writer, that leads me to be so squicked out by the original question. I understand from experience that working with an "editor" means discussing the content of your work (which, again, in this case is sexualy explicit), and it becomes a "relationship," not an anonymous or impersonal exchange of ideas.

But to the dads who disagree with me (and moms), you are saying you'd be OK if an adult (and I don't know kemayo's age, which could affect how serious this is) in another state were sending explicit texts to your 17 year old child, for whom you are *legally* responsible, and cultivating thereby a personal relationship centered on these texts? I'm just making sure I hear that right. I find it very hard to believe, but maybe I need my horizons expanded here.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:47 AM on March 16, 2007

Sometimes I look at my comment count and wonder why I haven't reached 2000 yet.

Was it lack of ambition?

Was it a general laziness?

Was it a poor upbringing with to much nature and not enough nurture?

Was it that my parents didn't spank me enough/spanked me too much?

Was it genetic?

Was it the slow gas leak in that old studio apartment that I used to live in which may have caused minor brain damage?

Was it an unwillingness to watch "Dancer in the Dark" with my girlfriend at the time mainly because I hate to watch really long movies (with the exception of "The Longest Day")

Was it because my penis is either too big or too small to post properly?

Was it because the cabal (which doesn't exist) has been deleting my best comments, only to repost them under their own name?

Was it because of that time in grade school when I laughed when Jenny S pulled off our teacher's wig, but then I felt bad about it later?

Was it because my internet arch-nemesis isn't as effective or interesting as I would like?

Was it because I didn't win the USS Flagg in first grade?

Was it because, in second grade, when the teacher asked if I would really want my dead fish "swimmy" back, I said "yes" infuriating her and leading to her just ending that lesson on the spot?

Was it because I didn't try hard enough in College?

Then I read profiles of certain posters, and realize that it's because I don't spend entire threads getting into pissing matches with other members, viciously trying to grind my motherfucking axe as much as possible.

Or it's because I masturbate too much.
posted by drezdn at 10:53 AM on March 16, 2007 [5 favorites]

jonmc: my point is that the OP (kemayo) is seeking to form a relationship with this 17 year old,

I understand both your squick at the potential seediness of the whole transaction (and I loathe pedophiles as much as anyone), but it does strike me as bit weird that if the person was in question was a year older, we wouldn't be having this coversation. Hell, the question wouldn't have been asked. My 'porn in the woods' line was basically saying that by 17, I was quite familiar with way more than dirty stories and I didn't turn out scarred or a pervert, and I can only imagine that today's teens who've grown up with the web have been exposed to shit that would make a Marine blush.

The main thing is: are we putting the admin's ass in a potential legal sling with this. I honestly don't know. And I'll admit I'd feel a little disturbed at helping some dirty old man score.
posted by jonmc at 10:53 AM on March 16, 2007

So, breezway, you're saying that just because parents don't like it, we shouldn't have community standards or laws governing sexual relationships between adults and minors? Just making sure I heard that right. Damn those breeder moralists.

To answer your question, no. You're making a huge leap here. I referred to a situation where one poster asks a question that may or may not be motivated by an urge to molest children; the question is answered with a suggestion that the activity is, in fact, illegal, and should not be done. Then someone, waving the "I'm a parent" flag, comes along and demands that the poster be castigated and the question be deleted, and claims that anyone who doesn't think so is enabling child-molesters, or a child-molester themselves.

Here, you're doing the same thing to me. You put words in my mouth, ask me if that's what I'm saying, and respond to your own assumed "yes" with some implications of your own ("breeder moralists?" What exactly are you trying to say?)

You ask if you heard that right. The answer is no. You haven't heard anything right, from the AskMe thread all the way down. You may just be trolling, you may just be so angry about this that you're completely irrational, you may be stupid, or you may be an asshole. That's about it.

I thought you said you were done. Stepping away from the keyboard, even.
posted by breezeway at 10:53 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

Life must be hard for dads.
posted by hermitosis at 10:53 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

4cm, I see your point, and I definitely see the squick value of the AskMe post in question.

But people do not normally form those kinds of relationships with their proofreader. Huge difference between a proofreader and editor.

(As an editor).
posted by lampoil at 10:55 AM on March 16, 2007

But to the dads who disagree with me (and moms), you are saying you'd be OK if an adult...

I don't know if I'd be OK with it. It would probably depend on a lot of details that we don't know here. I do know I wouldn't consider the writer a child molester for using a resource on the web to help him decide if it was a good idea.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:55 AM on March 16, 2007

i'm sure that 17 year old would get tired of the relentless obscenity and want to do something clean and uplifting, like listening to rap cds or talking to his friends in the locker room
posted by pyramid termite at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

what's that smell?
posted by owhydididoit at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2007

Sorry, nathancanswell, nothing. I won't feed a troll or a flamewar today -- try to catch me in a politics thread if you want to go at it with me -- I'll tear you a new one if it makes you happy. And yes, maybe I am "fucking crazy," and yes, I keep coming back when I say I'm done (and yes it is embarrassing) -- because there continue to be points raised that require a response or clarification or rebuttal in a rational, measured tone. Left unanswered, they allow certain serious misunderstandings of my point in making the callout to persist.

Uranus, I did not mean to imply that parents would understand this and non-parents would not, and I regret any such implication resulting from my choice of pronouns. I was saying that as a parent I have a particular perspective here (and another as a writer, as I said). I think abstract philosophical principles should be tested against concrete realities, and I continue to believe that most parents would object to kemayo's conduct -- his/her conduct to date, in fact -- if their own 17 year old were the interlocutor in question. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Almost any fellow (liberal, progressive, tolerant, cosmopolitan, educated) parent I know would, I am sure, be very upset to discover that their child was the target of kemayo's search for an editor for her/his "dirty, dirty stories."
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:57 AM on March 16, 2007

You're right, Fourcheesemac.

I too was expecting that sucker to be deleted -- not because it violates the guidelines, but because it's bullshit of some kind. Jamjam makes an excellent point: I think the kindest construction of the original question would have to involve some doubt that the OP is aware of his or her actual motives; the most severe a conviction that the OP is attempting to use AskMe to establish lack of criminal intent before proceeding to act criminally, with full intent.

That is to say, as many have pointed out -- it is not possible that this question is sincere taken at face-value. The situation is pretty unlikely -- and even so, who would think this was a good idea? Nobody. So the choices are these:

Would-be teenager-molester
Troll
Just another AskMe creative writing project.

My money's on #3. It should have been deleted.
posted by Methylviolet at 11:00 AM on March 16, 2007

Can I start a MeTa post about the use of the word "squick"?

Acceptable? I get what it means but I have never heard it before today and I hope to never hear it again. That word "squicks" me out almost as much as the word "moist".

Is this another internet word or am I really living in a cave?
posted by Lola_G at 11:01 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is a gag, right? Is there a camera somewhere? Is this whole thing a giant troll exercise - both the original askme and this post? Or, are people really this fucking stupid?
posted by Elmore at 11:03 AM on March 16, 2007

Can I start a MeTa post about the use of the word "squick"?

Acceptable? I get what it means

scroll down to #2 ... that's the meaning i've been familiar with

and you thought zombies didn't have sex lives ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:06 AM on March 16, 2007

you are saying you'd be OK if an adult in another state were sending explicit texts to your 17 year old child, for whom you are *legally* responsible, and cultivating thereby a personal relationship centered on these texts?

Depends on the child, but judging from the direction my kids are going, I'd be ok with them helping proofread/edit some dirty, dirty stories if that's what they wanted to do. If they were 16, that might be a different story, but again, it depends on the child.

I'd be REALLY ok with it, if I knew the editor was actively asking if doing this was the right thing to do.

YMMV.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:09 AM on March 16, 2007

actually, the original concept was to drill a hole in the person's head while he was still alive ... well, you can imagine the rest, i'm sure
posted by pyramid termite at 11:10 AM on March 16, 2007

I'm not a dad, but I do have a little sister who was 17 'til just the other week there. She, and her friends, read sexually explicit stuff all the time, as did I at that age. But just because something contains sex scenes, even 'explicit' sex scenes, doesn't mean it's pornography: my sister likes Chuck Paulahnuik and Irvine Welsh, for example: they're rude and often explicit, but they're not porn. Hell, she borrowed the books from my shelf. Does that make me a child molester? Should I have knocked the books from her hand and set them alight and jumped up and down on them? Or does it mean I realise that she's old enough to read that stuff, and that they're good books, and that everyone should read Trainspotting. At the risk of sounding like an old man: kids grow up fast these days.

I'm not saying it's okay for the OP to send the stuff to a seventeen year old; I don't really think it is (and how good is a seventeen year old going to be as a proofreader anyway (no offence, seventeen year olds)). A large part of that, however, is because of the hysteria evident in both threads. I certainly don't think it 'disgusting' that he asked the question, though.

On preview:

that their child was the target of kemayo's search for an editor for her/his "dirty, dirty stories."

Fourcheese, you've reading the question all wrong: She volunteered to proofread them, he doesn't know if that's a good idea, hence the askme question. And he said "I need help proofreading a number of pieces of short fiction, several of which contain very explicit sex scenes." [my emphasis]. I think the 'dirty, dirty' stories' was just (perhaps ill-advised) jocular phrasing.
posted by Robot Rowboat at 11:11 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

*squicks moistly*
posted by jonmc at 11:13 AM on March 16, 2007

California, where kemayo is located, has it thus:

Penal Code 288.2. (a) Every person who, with knowledge that a person is a minor, or who fails to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the true age of a minor, knowingly distributes, sends, causes to be sent, exhibits, or offers to distribute or exhibit by any means, including, but not limited to, live or recorded telephone messages, any harmful matter, as defined in Section 313, to a minor with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of that person or of a minor, and with the intent or for the purpose of seducing a minor, is guilty of a public offense
and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail.
A person convicted of a second and any subsequent conviction for a violation of this section is guilty of a felony.
(b) Every person who, with knowledge that a person is a minor, knowingly distributes, sends, causes to be sent, exhibits, or offers to distribute or exhibit by electronic mail, the Internet, as defined in Section 17538 of the Business and Professions Code, or a commercial online service, any harmful matter, as defined in Section 313, to a minor with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of that person or of a minor, and with the intent, or for the purpose of seducing a minor, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail.
A person convicted of a second and any subsequent conviction for a violation of this section is guilty of a felony.

Yeah, just a gag Elmore.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:14 AM on March 16, 2007

their child was the target of kemayo's search for an editor for her/his "dirty, dirty stories."

Nthing the idea that you're reading too much into this. By all means, ask for more details, but you're doing a lot of projecting.

She volunteered to proofread them,

Do we even know the teenager is a she?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:18 AM on March 16, 2007

I think the reason he was considering using a high-schooler is they were a "volunteer". People asked why not use a professional and a professional would want to be paid. A 17-year old is more likely to do it for free. That is the only thing I can think of that makes it not-as-gross and I'll choose to believe that, rather than that he's a pervert.

Plus, the question says nothing about the age of the poster. Perhaps he's 18. Is it still squicky? If the poster is also just out of high school, that's another reason they might need a free volunteer instead of a paid professional.

It was obviously a bad idea, but I can understand the point he brings up about the teen in question being able to buy the material themselves at a store. I can see how someone might think it could be okay and not be a child-molester...
posted by jesirose at 11:20 AM on March 16, 2007

Robot Rowboat, how do you suppose she (we assume) came to "volunteer" to edit kemayo's stories? That is why I say what has already transpired appears problematic to me.

Of course it depends on Kemayo's motives. We don't know them. But they are easily inferred, and as every response to the question indicated, and as MethylViolet says above (thanks MV), either kemayo is clueless that others might infer nefarious motives (and the law might define the act as nefarious on its face in Oregon), or s/he (and you will note that I do not make any distinction as to gender here on principle) knows exactly how most people would infer those motives, and is either bullshitting AskMe or establishing a spurious record of lack of criminal intent.

I suppose if kemay is clueless, the question is innocent and my callout is pointless. If so, I am sorry. But I wonder what was at that now-deleted link and comment about the website it linked to, and I suspect it provides evidence of lack of cluelessness.

Maybe I'm just not the trusting sort.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:22 AM on March 16, 2007

Do we even know the teenager is a she?

Uh, yeah, good point. My bad.
posted by Robot Rowboat at 11:23 AM on March 16, 2007

I actually saw a bit of that "To Catch a predator" on MSNBC the other day, only because my TV was set to that channel when I turned it on. It was actually pretty funny. Heh.
posted by delmoi at 11:26 AM on March 16, 2007

jesirose, to me the clear implication of Kemayo's question was that s/he is an adult. Obviously, a fellow teenager would be a different story from, say, a 35 year old, including under the law.

It's a bad question if it fails to state such a relevant fact. Or it doesn't state it on purpose. As I said, maybe it's just cluelessness. Or maybe not.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:27 AM on March 16, 2007

Robot Rowboat, how do you suppose she (we assume) came to "volunteer" to edit kemayo's stories?

I couldn't possibly say. Could be any number of reasons. Perhaps he/she wants to get into editing or journalism or something. That's equally as likely as the scenario you envisage, I would think.
posted by Robot Rowboat at 11:27 AM on March 16, 2007

yeah. Kiddie Rapers, whatta hoot!

(the show is exploitative and somewhat clueless, but I don't find perverts that mondo jovial)
posted by jonmc at 11:27 AM on March 16, 2007

to a minor with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of that person or of a minor, and with the intent, or for the purpose of seducing a minor,

how does "i'd like someone to proofread some stories" translate into that sort of intent?

But I wonder what was at that now-deleted link and comment about the website it linked to, and I suspect it provides evidence of lack of cluelessness.

did you know that invisible pink unicorns can squick you without your knowing it?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:29 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I agree with jonmc.

(That might be the first time I've ever typed such a thing.)

The kid's 17, not 12. The work in question is a bunch of stories, not necessarily "real" pornography. I was reading Updike (much to my English teacher's horror) at 16. Yes, it's different to be proofreading that sort of thing, but truthfully (as an editor and proofer) I get *less* emotionally invested in the stuff I'm copyediting or proofing. You start looking for commas and subject-verb agreement and more or less ignoring the content.

The "OMG CHILD MOLESTER!" thing is just glossing over a lot of issues. The kid may legally be a minor, but he's hardly pre-pubescent or unlikely to have been exposed to some degree of sexually explicit materials by the age of 17 (and I would probably assume that the kid found kemayo's site on his own, rather than had been lured there by an evilly intentioned pedophile). The stories may have explicit content, but that doesn't make them porn. Asking someone to proof for grammar is not the same thing as having "the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of that person or of a minor, and with the intent or for the purpose of seducing a minor."

One can talk about the shades of gray in these issues without being an apologist for child molesters.
posted by occhiblu at 11:29 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

To me the combination of the question along with the smut tag screams "delete me" . And I am not a dad.
posted by Big_B at 11:30 AM on March 16, 2007

Coupla things— I, as a minor, got porn from my adult buddies. The age difference between minor and adult matters, and at 17, I was already pretty interested in shit like Literotica and all the four-color jpegs I could find depicting nasty acts.

Second, has anyone else noticed an uptick in the "me against the world" on MeFi lately? What the fuck is going on? More and more people seem to be adopting these broad persecution complexes that I just don't get (possibly because I'm perseccuting them). And it seems to be all white guys. Are they just jealous of victimhood?
posted by klangklangston at 11:31 AM on March 16, 2007

*cuts out drezdn's comment at the dashes, hangs it on fridge*

*next minute, on the Green*

Dear AskMe, why is my LCD monitor no longer working?
posted by IndigoRain at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

either kemayo is clueless that others might infer nefarious motives (and the law might define the act as nefarious on its face in Oregon), or s/he (and you will note that I do not make any distinction as to gender here on principle) knows exactly how most people would infer those motives, and is either bullshitting AskMe or establishing a spurious record of lack of criminal intent.

I think the point of the question was that the poster wanted to find out whether others would infer nefarious motives, because he was on the fence about what his inferences would be if he weren't in the middle of the issue. Sometimes it's hard to separate yourself from your own circumstances when making judgment calls like these, and I would applaud the poster for having the presence of mind to get some outside opinions.
posted by vytae at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2007

I agree with jonmc.

(That might be the first time I've ever typed such a thing.)

It happens to everyone eventually. (seriously, If there was a way to compile a list of everytime someone said a variation on that statement on MeFi, it'd fill...well, one big ass web page.)
posted by jonmc at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2007

"jesirose, to me the clear implication of Kemayo's question was that s/he is an adult."

18's an adult in the states. You'd know if you ever watched Barely Legal. Jeez.
posted by klangklangston at 11:34 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Some day, when I'm old, when people ask me if I've ever lived through full-blown mass hysteria, I look forward to thinking back to the Great Internet Pedophile Crisis and saying "yes" before taking a long pull at my stein of fungobeer.
posted by COBRA! at 11:35 AM on March 16, 2007

it is not possible that this question is sincere taken at face-value.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but having participated in nanowrimo, I was surprised at the number of high school kids at the local meet up. They accounted for at least 40% of the participants, maybe more. I don't think it would be that unlikely for someone to ask a fellow writer to proof their work in that kind of context. And certainly, having explicit sex scenes does not make the pieces of fiction necessarily pornographic.
posted by juv3nal at 11:35 AM on March 16, 2007

Is it ok for me to nonsexually bullwhip a seventeen year old because they stink of potato chips, have slack-jawed, idiot moonfaces and shout randomly for attention like a person born without a forebrain strapped to a chair and left in front of a drafty window?

I wouldn't let a seventeen year old carry a bucket of wet sand six paces in any of the cardinal directions, let alone proofread my weirdo harry potter slash fiction or whatever the fuck it is. The post should have been deleted for the cardinal sin of trying to get a teenager to do anything other than pout, loiter or just sit there getting greasier. I say all this as a father.

Jesus wept.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2007 [23 favorites]

I haven't backed away from anything.

Clearly you haven't backed away from the keyboard. There's still hope.

Depending on the content of that conversation, a law may have already been broken.

Kemayo has sought volunteer editors for short works of fiction, some of which contain explicit sex scenes not unlike those found in mainstream bookstores. The fact that the volunteer is seventeen apparently gave Kemayo pause. That same seventeen year old can walk into their local mainstream bookstore and by equivalent literature with no proof of age. That bookstore doesn't fear legal reprisal, why should Kemayo? Furthermore, it's not even clear Kemayo even told the seventeen year old that some of the works contain explicit material.

Despite the admirable consensus that sending the material is a bad idea, to make a case for Kemayo breaking the law already, you'd need some evidence. That it is in the realm of possibilities does equal evidence.

with the intent or for the purpose of seducing a minor

Other than in your imagination, where's the intent? Sending Anne Rice to a teenager does not, itself, rise to the occasion, otherwise Hot Topic would go out of business. If Hot Topic is still in business, you must acquit.
posted by sequential at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

It happens to everyone eventually. (seriously, If there was a way to compile a list of everytime someone said a variation on that statement on MeFi, it'd fill...well, one big ass web page.)

Just as long as it didn't get in the way of the pics. If I'm at a big ass web page, I'm there for one thing and one thing only.
posted by COBRA! at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

fourcheese - yes, the question makes it obvious that he's legally a major. But look at his previous questions...he's more likely to be 20-30 than 30-50 and in my mind, it seems more likely he was being honest and couldn't afford a professional. Does that mean I want to read his dirty dirty stories? No. But I really think it's more cluelessness than malice here.

I can understand why you'd be upset about someone actually meaning to do harm. That doesn't mean you need to automatically assume the worst. If he'd asked "How can I get away with sending this to a 17 year old", that would look bad on the community. Asking "is this wrong" doesn't make AskMe look bad the way you previously said.

Considering all the "Not Legal, don't do it" sort of responses, saying AskMe is enabling child-molesters is over-reacting...

PS: I wish my dad was as outspoken about potential perversity as you are (You mentioned before it bothered you as a father). I was sexually assaulted in high school by a fellow student, and my boyfriends father was more outraged than mine. :/
posted by jesirose at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2007

***I am unforgivably old. I ask that no readers below the age of 30 read this comment for fear that others may think I'm leading you into white slavery***

The original poster doesn't detail the situation. Perhaps he's a college student, aged 21, who met another college student, age 17, on some Buffy fansite. He likes to write stories, and is proud of his ability. The 17 year old has expressed interest in reading them, and since he has appreciated her taste and judgment in her analysis of Buffy episodes, he thinks she might provide good advice for fine-tuning his work before he offers it to a wider audience. His writing isn't stroke material, but he knows there are within it explicitly sexual scenes that could raise concern in our present climate. Except for the arbitrary fencing of age 18 that makes him a calculating worldly predator and her an innocent who just packed her Barbies away, they're basically peers. If something like this was the situation, should we still banish his question as so obviously a sign of a child molester considering strategy?

Those who answered the question gave reasonable advice, not necessarily because the OP was doing something morally wrong (we don't know the details), but because we're all now swimming in the sweaty puddle of the finger-wagging public's lust for cheap thrills, the pandering media's lust for dollars and attention, and state's lust for authority and cool take-downs for the cameras. Leading chat-transcript tease, Chris Hanson, who has a new book out, was all over the TV last week, pimping hard his tale of hot teens and the creeps who love them before the audience loses their boner for it. Leading off on Dateline with replays of Your Top 2006 Perverts, he then finished with a slideshow of Oprah platitudes and late show takeoffs, glorying in his celebrity. Thank heaven for little girls, they'll soon finance a move closer to the ocean. Maybe we should try a little to resist the force of this hypocrisy rather than threatening people with it. Give the original Ask poster credit for being self aware enough to be careful about his actions rather than assuming he has exposed his inner funny uncle.

***The bad man is finished speaking now. You kiddies go back to enjoying your cake and ice cream. ***
posted by TimTypeZed at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2007 [13 favorites]

If Kemayo took down the link from their profile after that, I'm not surprised. --cortex

Yeah, I wanted to avoid massive branching off of the discussion. I failed, obviously. Woe is me.

(and I don't know kemayo's age, which could affect how serious this is) --4cm

Well, for what it's worth, I'm 22, and the woman who would actually have been interacting with said 17 year old girl is 25.

it is not possible that this question is sincere taken at face-value --Methylviolet

I get no respect. :-P

I really did just hope that someone knew whether or not this was actually illegal. Because if it's illegal, I'd prefer not to do it.

As others have pointed out, it does amuse me that if said girl was two months older she would have crossed the Magic Line of Adulthood. Then I wouldn't have bothered to ask because it would have become a pure adult-to-adult business relationship.

I could, perhaps, have toned down the subtle humor inherent in calling them "dirty, dirty stories".
posted by Kemayo at 11:37 AM on March 16, 2007

I could, perhaps, have toned down the subtle humor inherent in calling them "dirty, dirty stories"

no no no no keep going.
posted by Stynxno at 11:39 AM on March 16, 2007

YOU MOLESTER I TOTALLY CALLED IT
posted by chinston at 11:39 AM on March 16, 2007

The whole "back away from the keyboard" think is sorta tired since everyone keeps baiting him to respond. It's sorta like: you go somewhere else while we all talk about what an idiot you are, ok? It would be different if the "back away from the keyboard" contingent themselves actually backed away from the keyboard, but that's the fun of heckling, I guess.
posted by Mid at 11:41 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

...and yeah one of the categories you can write under for nanowrimo is erotic fiction. and yes there are high schoolers writing in that vein.
posted by juv3nal at 11:41 AM on March 16, 2007

I win, he's 22! Not squicky :)
posted by jesirose at 11:42 AM on March 16, 2007

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Scene!
posted by Falconetti at 11:42 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

well, DUH ... then you just wait 2 months and everyone's home free

now THAT was worth 100+ comments and a half-assed flame-out, wasn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:42 AM on March 16, 2007

If it gets high school kids to read more, I'm all for it.
posted by geoff. at 11:42 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

Why can't you just wait two months? Are the stories that urgent?
posted by jesirose at 11:43 AM on March 16, 2007

holy crap...that makes next to no sense now that a kerjillion comments have sprung up since my previous one.
posted by juv3nal at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2007

how do you suppose she (we assume) came to "volunteer" to edit kemayo's stories?

Maybe he asked for volunteers on his website and the 17 year old responded?

But they are easily inferred,
Sure, if you have certain bias

and as every response to the question indicated,

Please tell me you didn't justify your bias by, essentially, saying "everyone agrees with me".

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong and completely outta line. But I do think you're overreacting from that parental instinct of protect the children at all costs. Which is a fine instinct to have. But, judging from the question, it's a 17 year old volunteer offering to proof or edit stories with naughty bits. I'd say any 17 year old offering to do shows a certain maturity which probably indicates they know what they're doing.

I've been 13, 15, 17, 20, 25, and 30 years old. At all those points I've known 17 year olds who were destined for jail and others who were smarter than many adults. Casting a general blanket around them all is overkill.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2007

With that out of the way, I still don't see how others thought the question was that nefarious...

How would asking whether or not something is illegal be some cheap way for a pervo to get their rocks off.
posted by drezdn at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2007

jesirose, thanks. Looks, from Kemayo's comment, like you nailed the age thing. That does change how this looks to me. But as you pointed out, someone close in age can also be a predator. I'm so sorry that happened to you, and points out the reailty that TimTypeZed seems to think is all just the hysteria-of-the-day.

Kemayo, thank you for clarifying. You never mentioned an intermediary or your age in the question. Both facts change the story a lot. But since you're an adult, hopefully you now see the legal risk you were considering taking was serious.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:45 AM on March 16, 2007

all the four-color jpegs I could find depicting nasty acts

32-bit color images depicting nasty acts will blow your mind, then. Wait until your 18, though, you wouldn't want your growth stunted.
posted by sequential at 11:45 AM on March 16, 2007

One of these posts just reminded me of the time a neighbor boy showed me his stack of Hustler magazines. I didn't look at one of them individually but that stack must have included every issue since the magazines inception (it was the 80s at the time).

I think kids (at 32, a 17 year old is now a kid to me) get their hands on enough things of questionable taste, value, whathaveyou.

The OP should find another resource. Whether or not it is illegal is not the only consideration.

I may be really lame but I am far from a square - and I wouldn't buy alcohol for a 17 year old. They may find it elsewhere but I don't want to be the one giving it to them.

Maybe it isn't contributing to delinquency per sebut err on the side of caution.
posted by Lola_G at 11:45 AM on March 16, 2007

Second, has anyone else noticed an uptick in the "me against the world" on MeFi lately?

MetaFilter: Where you're Michael Douglas and every day is Falling Down.
posted by felix betachat at 11:46 AM on March 16, 2007 [5 favorites]

...and yeah one of the categories you can write under for nanowrimo is erotic fiction. and yes there are high schoolers writing in that vein.

Well, DUH! For most teenage boys, that's as close to actual action as they're going to get. Mainly cause all the chicks were off messing around with older guys.
posted by jonmc at 11:47 AM on March 16, 2007

fourcheesemac, I read this entire thread with an open mind (I'm as open minded as anybody...) and I have to say that I've rarely seen anyone as ready to assume the worst about their interlocutors as you are here. At almost every opportunity you have lashed out at someone in this thread while simultaneously crying out that you're a victim. To the extent that there is rancor in the thread, almost all of it originates with you, and not just with your initial premise, but with your repeated attempts to paint those who disagree with you as mean-spirited (at best) and criminal (at worst). No parenthood can excuse your really very rude behavior. I'm completely flabbergasted that you seem to think you're in the right here.
posted by OmieWise at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2007 [7 favorites]

Well, well, well. This has certainly turned into a mess.

I'm the OP's wife, and the "actual" asker of the question--I asked him to post it for me because I didn't have a MetaFilter account myself. So now I'm $5 poorer, because I couldn't resist jumping in to clarify a few things.

I would like to thank fourcheesemac, by the way, for providing the only useful response to the original question--that section of the California penal code is exactly what I was looking for, and I'm curious what the Oregon equivalent is. According to the California code, sending the stories would not be illegal, but if concerned parents raised an outcry (as they've done here and in the original thread), I might have a hard time proving there was no "intent to arouse or seduce".

Just to give a few more details, for those who are speculating wildly...this girl was referred to me by a mutual friend who knew I needed help with this project. She's looking for work experience and resume padding, as she wants to get a job in publishing someday, and I'm looking for free help because I'm on a very tight budget. She'll be 18 in a couple of months anyway, but the question came up because I need help right now, and I've seen proof that she's a competent proofreader/editor despite her age. And the stories in question aren't as dirty as you might think--as mentioned in the original post, several of them do contain sex scenes, but not all. They're all romance stories, and slighly less than half are explicit.

So it seems that I'd be best off having her help me out with the non-explicit ones only, to avoid the risk of frothing "concerned citizens" calling me a child molester. Though I am still curious what the Oregon laws are on the matter...
posted by tomatofruit at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Please tell me you didn't justify your bias by, essentially, saying "everyone agrees with me".

No, of course not. I meant that nearly every answer in the original AskMe thread assumed or stated that the act being inquired about was potentially illegal and certainly risky, regardless of its moral rectitude.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2007

Lola_G, we traded playboys on boyscout camping trips, and I tried my hand at erotic fiction in fifth grade with nary a legitimate idea of what sex was except that it involved being naked and rubbing against each other.
posted by drezdn at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2007

MetaFilter: Where you're Michael Douglas and every day is Falling Down.

As middle age approaches, it's difficult not to feel that way some days, trust me. But if my Dad is any indication, it passes after your mid-40's. (also, dismissiveness of the attitude only deepens it, trust me)
posted by jonmc at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2007

How would asking whether or not something is illegal be some cheap way for a pervo to get their rocks off.

I am immensely turned on by legal advice.

It's a sickness.
posted by Kemayo at 11:51 AM on March 16, 2007 [4 favorites]

See, this is why I try not to assume bad things about people.

Of course, you could now say that the OP has made up a fictional account for his fictional wife, and is trying to cover up his perversity.

Hmmm... :-P
posted by jesirose at 11:51 AM on March 16, 2007

Well, Omie, we'll need to disagree about that, with all due respect. One man's open mind is another's cul-de-sac.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:51 AM on March 16, 2007

Hey, leave omie's scrotum out of this. He's mine!
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 11:53 AM on March 16, 2007

"...it is not possible that this question is sincere taken at face-value"

That's silly. When I read the question, I assumed that there was some sort of web-mediated writer/editor community where people wrote and edited each other's stuff.

Anyway, I'm with dobbs on this. The practical answers about legal concerns are correct and comprehensible. The people freaking out about possible "adult-child sex predation" are themselves creepy. Most especially those who talk about "being a father" as justification. I know one father who was fiercely protective of his daughter and her chastity. That's because he was fucking her himself and was jealous of competitors.

I'm not saying that's true of fourcheesemac, of course. I doubt that it is. On the other hand, if I were like him, I'd just launch straight from poorly-founded suspicions based on gut instinct to making outright accusations. And justify it with the cry of "save the children!"

On Preview: Not what I thought, but a perfectly reasonable explanation. There is clearly a sort of hysteria in that thread and this one.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:55 AM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

"I'm so sorry that happened to you, and points out the reailty that TimTypeZed seems to think is all just the hysteria-of-the-day."

No, my experience contributes to the statistic that says women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know and trust. The boy was an ex-boyfriend who I had several classes with. Not a stranger I met via the internet sending me IMs.

The fact that I met my husband on the internet when I was 17 and he was 23, kind of supports the "hysteria-of-the-day" idea. I was told since I got my first computer not to trust men on the internet, despite the fact that my mother met my father-in-law (a perfectly wonderful man) and I met my husband via the internet.

There was an article in a magazine I read recently about young girls posting their names and locations on the internet, and how old men were going to track them down and molest them. The magazine then included photos, names, and locations of these girls (and no, they were NOT changed to protect them!) People pointed out the hypocrisy and the magazine was just like "Oh, oops."

Scary people are everywhere, and nothing you can do or say is ever going to protect children one hundred percent from something bad happening. I try not to assume the worst about people, but I also try to protect myself. It's a difficult situation.

I really hope the OP isn't one of the scary people. Assuming he is made you pretty upset, and it appears to be untrue. :/ *shrug*
posted by jesirose at 11:57 AM on March 16, 2007

My grass really needs some mowing.
posted by bigmusic at 11:58 AM on March 16, 2007

I look forward to thinking back to the Great Internet Pedophile Crisis and saying "yes" before taking a long pull at my stein of fungobeer.

Now that's filthy.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:59 AM on March 16, 2007

One man's open mind is another's cul-de-sac.

Undoubtedly. I hope you caught the echo of your own words...

...Uranus--You had me at hello!
posted by OmieWise at 12:01 PM on March 16, 2007

Ethereal Bligh, nice innuendo there. So let me make what I promise is my final comment (other than that it's awfully easy to say you're anyone and any age on the internet, so I don't know what to make of some of the stuff above).

If I were the father of a 17 year old daughter who was approached by an adult stranger in another state wanting to send her explicit stories to edit, I would find that adult and kick her/his ass nine ways to sunday, via the legal process if possible, or by any other means necessary to get that person to leave my child alone.

I have no problem whatsoever with sexualy explicit material. I'm completely sex-positive where adults are concerned. I am not a prude, and I'm not projecting. I'm telling you what many, many fathers would feel (and mothers, if I know mothers) if our budding Anne Rice decided their kid was a suitable editor for her/his smut. You may not get it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You want to see me as some sort of agent of intolerance and sexual prudery and social hysteria. I am not. I may be "fucking crazy," a "moron, " an "asshole," or whatever else has been tossed at me in this thread. But I'm speaking what I think is true. And kemayo's curious and elaborate explanation above, complete with sockpuppetry and missing context not provided, ever, in the original AskMe thread (in which kemayo commented without providing this context), doesn't really change my mind.

Maybe this was a flameout. I know I have a nasty taste in my mouth now, and a lower opinion than I had about several MeFites before this thread. I need a vacation, for sure, from this place. It's gotten really smelly.
posted by fourcheesemac at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2007

It's gotten really smelly.
posted by fourcheesemac

Nah, that's too easy.
posted by bigmusic at 12:18 PM on March 16, 2007

So let me make what I promise is my final comment

I'm taking bets. Who wants in?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:19 PM on March 16, 2007

I look forward to thinking back to the Great Internet Pedophile Crisis and saying "yes" before taking a long pull at my stein of fungobeer.

Now that's filthy.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:59 PM CST on March 16 [+]
[!]

Even worse, I have 17-year-olds edit all of my comments.
posted by COBRA! at 12:19 PM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

Kemayo: Why not just wait two months until the girl is 18, then?
posted by Justinian at 12:20 PM on March 16, 2007

"Ethereal Bligh, nice innuendo there. "

No, no, no— In you end-o!

"If I were the father of a 17 year old daughter who was approached by an adult stranger in another state wanting to send her explicit stories to edit, I would find that adult and kick her/his ass nine ways to sunday, via the legal process if possible, or by any other means necessary to get that person to leave my child alone."

But if she were two months older and 18, I'd buy her a pack of condoms and a hand-pump of lube, because she's magically matured!
posted by klangklangston at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2007

kick her/his ass nine ways to sunday, via the legal process if possible

I'm irrationally askeered of state-sanctioned beatings, myself; I'm more afraid of my kids living under fascism than dirty old men.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2007

If I were the father of a 17 year old daughter

i'd still suspect it was the milkman
posted by pyramid termite at 12:27 PM on March 16, 2007

If I were the father of a 17 year old daughter who was approached by an adult stranger in another state wanting to send her explicit stories to edit, I would find that adult and kick her/his ass nine ways to sunday, via the legal process if possible, or by any other means necessary to get that person to leave my child alone.

And if your daughter aproached them, based on reading their website and responded to an open call for editors? Do you even get why one thing would be creepy and the other, er, not?

Maybe this was a flameout. I know I have a nasty taste in my mouth now, and a lower opinion than I had about several MeFites before this thread. I need a vacation, for sure, from this place. It's gotten really smelly.

ZOMG! People disagree with you!
posted by delmoi at 12:27 PM on March 16, 2007

I know I have a nasty taste in my mouth now, and a lower opinion than I had about several MeFites before this thread.

We'll live.
posted by jonmc at 12:31 PM on March 16, 2007

...But as you pointed out, someone close in age can also be a predator.

Do you realize that anybody can be a predator, even a parent? Truth is, the only real way to protect your kids is to keep them locked inside until they're adults, or teach them how to handle themselves in these situations.
posted by SteveInMaine at 12:32 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Maybe this was a flameout. I know I have a nasty taste in my mouth now, and a lower opinion than I had about several MeFites before this thread. I need a vacation, for sure, from this place. It's gotten really smelly.

no no no no keep going.
posted by Stynxno at 12:34 PM on March 16, 2007

I like to picture certain metafilter posters as Mary Worth when I read their comments.
posted by drezdn at 12:36 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can we end this now Cortex, or Matt, or whoever is in charge?
posted by wheelieman at 12:37 PM on March 16, 2007

i like to picture certain metafilter posters as zippy the pinhead when i read their comments
posted by pyramid termite at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2007

I would find that adult and kick her/his ass

Adult abuser.
posted by Shave at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I picture them naked, like me.
posted by Justinian at 12:39 PM on March 16, 2007

Mary Worth

the syrup lady?
posted by Stynxno at 12:39 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Second, has anyone else noticed an uptick in the "me against the world" on MeFi lately?

I think it's just that we're getting more nonpolitical flameouts lately. But the persecution complex has always been there, so, no.

And kemayo's curious and elaborate explanation above, complete with sockpuppetry and missing context not provided, ever, in the original AskMe thread (in which kemayo commented without providing this context), doesn't really change my mind.

The hole has officially been dug too deep.

I need a vacation, for sure, from this place. It's gotten really smelly.

This is the internet. What you smell is four cheese macaroni that's been left indoors for too long. Go outside.
posted by spiderwire at 12:40 PM on March 16, 2007

Perhaps you should bookmark this thread and come back to it in a week or so and reread it. With a bit of time and distance, you may be able to see the points those who disagreeed with you are making, as opposed to insisting that your view is the only possible view.

Take care.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:41 PM on March 16, 2007

If you fail to see the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it's your problem.

*Squeezing my eyes shut; holding my breath; clicking my heels.* Damn, nothing's happening. Any suggestions?
posted by ericb at 12:42 PM on March 16, 2007

Every call out I have ever read goes like this:

Person with a beef: I think X was inappropriate for Y reason. Who's with me?
Inevitable response #1: Who cares? Your concern is dumb.
Inevitable response #2: Joke
Inevitable response #3: You care about that? You must be such a jerk.
Person with a beef: I'm not a jerk. I just think Z.
Inevitable response #4: lol jerk amirite?
Inevitable response #5: JERK!
Inevitable response #6: You know who was a JERK? Hitler!
Person with a beef: Don't call me Hitler!
Inevitable response #7: JERK! HITLER!
Inevitable response #8: Jerks make me so mad! I'm going to cut off your head and piss on your neck because you're a JEEEERRRRKK!
Moderater: I think A about post X. I'm closing it/not closing it. I'm closing this MeTa.

Like a Kabuki dance, or an episode of Pimp My Ride, its predictability does not make it less entertaining.
posted by Methylviolet at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2007 [8 favorites]

Hahahah, Metatalk Flameout = Pimp My Ride episode. Who knew such a comparison would make sense?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:45 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

*Squeezing my eyes shut; holding my breath; clicking my heels.* Damn, nothing's happening. Any suggestions?

shampoo your hair ... invisible pink unicorns hate squicking through hair that isn't clean
posted by pyramid termite at 12:45 PM on March 16, 2007

"Christ, what an asshole."
posted by slogger at 12:45 PM on March 16, 2007

I am going to regret making a stupid ass comment, but I can't help it...
Just remember what my Mom loved to tell me,
"Don't assume, assuming makes an ass out of you and me" (ass-u-me.. haha!.. *hides*)
We don't know WHAT his intentions were. How do you know that this girl (boy) did not meet the OP in some chat room talking dirty ect? How do we know that they are not an aspiring editor and that the OP is their friend? HOW do we know ANYTHING? We don't... the minor could be a slut, have ADD or really be a 35 year old man behind the keyboard.. the OP could be genuinely just needing some editing, could be a molester to the max... we just don't know...
however, all the fingerpointing, the accusations, the "I am better than you so there" attitudes... it makes me dissapointed in what we all are here at Metafilter and such..
For those of you who have been mature about this whole thing, thanks... thanks a whole lot.
(sorry if I have offended anyone.. I really haven't ment to.. I just get dissapointed in humanity at some point or another during the day... it's not you, it's me :) )
posted by ForeverDcember at 12:47 PM on March 16, 2007

Who knew such a comparison would make sense?

It would explain lately why the mefi server now also is outfitted qith 13 7" LCD screens, a chrome grill, now rides seven inches lower in it's rack and can also be used to serve ice cream.
posted by drezdn at 12:47 PM on March 16, 2007

I would like fourcheesemac to admit that in order for Kemayo to learn that "the legal risk you were considering taking was serious", he would have had to, for example, post a question to askme.
posted by Catfry at 12:48 PM on March 16, 2007

"Invisible Pink Unicorn"

It's invisible and it's mythical and it's pink. Even though it's invisible and unicorns, though mythical, are white. It's also a metaphor.

That's all sorts of screwed-up. Paging the analytic philosopher to the pink courtesy telephone.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:48 PM on March 16, 2007

sending explicit texts to your 17 year old child

Memories of Mark Foley.
posted by ericb at 12:52 PM on March 16, 2007

For anyone to believe that "in order for Kemayo to learn that "the legal risk you were considering taking was serious", he would have had to, for example, post a question to askme" they would have to think Kemayo and his sock were severely retarded. What a low opinion of Kemayo you all must have.

Of course, that is moot, because he admits that he knows there is an issue in the original question. So what is the question for? Nothing useful -- delete it.
posted by Methylviolet at 12:55 PM on March 16, 2007

Not all mythical unicorns are white.

I have actually been trying to think of an invisible pink unicorn, as hermitosis challenged us not to do lo so many comments ago. (Friday). But I can't. It can be pink, or invisible, but never both at the same time.
posted by lampoil at 12:56 PM on March 16, 2007

I need a vacation, for sure, from this place. It's gotten really smelly.

next comment in 3...2...1
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2007

maf54! What a great sock that would be. . .
posted by Mid at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2007

I keep picturing the unicorns as being dragonfly-sized, with little wings. I've found myself sub-consciously swatting them away from my ears ever since I was told of the squicking.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 1:00 PM on March 16, 2007

Of course, that is moot, because he admits that he knows there is an issue in the original question.

The point is that if he was going to go to all the trouble of creating a backstory and a wife sockpuppet, why bother asking the question in the first place? He's obviously not dumb.

So what is the question for? Nothing useful -- delete it.

Yes, now that the question's been answered, delete it, so we can have this same MeTa argument next time.
posted by spiderwire at 1:00 PM on March 16, 2007

Every call out I have ever read goes like this:

Actually a lot of them go like this:

Person with a beef: I think X was inappropriate for Y reason. Who's with me?
Inevitable response #1: I don't see it.
Inevitable response #2: I don't get what you're saying.
Inevitable response #3: I don't see it either.
Person with a beef: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ALL YOU PEOPLE?
Inevitable response #4: I don't see it either and now you're being a dick.
Inevitable response #5: Yeah, that was pretty dickish there.
Inevitable response #6: You know who was a DICK? Hitler!
Person with a beef: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE ALL WRONG AND WHEN THE SUN GOES DOWN AND THERE'S NO ONE AROUND I'LL GO BUCK ON YOUR ASS WITH A KNIFEY KNIFE KNIFE.
Inevitable response #7: ...
Inevitable response #8: Dude, go outside, but preferably in a place with no people around.
Moderater: I think A about post X. I'm closing it/not closing it. I'm closing this MeTa.

How you see it tends to depend on whether you agree with the person's beef.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:01 PM on March 16, 2007 [12 favorites]

I keep picturing the unicorns as being dragonfly-sized, with little wings. I've found myself sub-consciously swatting them away from my ears ever since I was told of the squicking.

Your problem is that you are very, very high.

No need to tell him about these unicorns, I thought: the poor bastard'll see 'em soon enough.
posted by spiderwire at 1:02 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I am willing to believe it, Lentro -- maybe you're right. But show me an example. Please. Even in Metas I didn't agree with, it always seems to be people responding who go buck on the ass of the person making the callout. People get so mad about a some minor, civilly-made objection that they go bug-eyed ape-shit violent.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by Methylviolet at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2007

tends to depend on whether you agree with the person's beef
I asked for four-cheese Mac beef but I ended up with a flame-grilled whopper.
posted by Abiezer at 1:11 PM on March 16, 2007

If unicorns existed, they'd be tiny pink dragonflies.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:13 PM on March 16, 2007

I keep picturing the unicorns as being dragonfly-sized, with little wings.

that's because the brain damage has already started from that unicorn lovin'
posted by pyramid termite at 1:14 PM on March 16, 2007

But show me an example. Please.

Huh? Go back to the top of the thread. There are six perfectly reasonable responses before fourcheesemac responds with "screw you schmuck" and "I give up".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:14 PM on March 16, 2007

Man I love these little conversations that spring up afterwards, it's like the bar stools have all been righted and, gradually, conversation pick back up.
posted by nathancaswell at 1:15 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

But show me an example. Please.

See, I'd say this one, but I doubt you'd agree. And I'm not sure which of us would be right. Which is sort of an illustration of my point.

See also: Rashomon.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:16 PM on March 16, 2007

So, just to recap:

* fourcheesemac taking MeFi vacation.
* tomatofruit/Kemayo's request not nefarious plot to rape underage girl
* Unicorns might resemble tiny pink dragonflies

All positive results. I think we can close the thread.. Mssr. Cortex?
posted by eyeballkid at 1:17 PM on March 16, 2007

I asked for four-cheese Mac beef but I ended up with a flame-grilled whopper.

Whoppers Rule, Dude.
posted by jonmc at 1:17 PM on March 16, 2007

you forgot that unicorns that resemble tiny pink dragonflies are DELICIOUS when dipped in chocolate
posted by pyramid termite at 1:18 PM on March 16, 2007

How about this one (the Reklaw Hotmail thread)? Is it your script or mine? Again, I think it's mine, but I'm not sure you will.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:19 PM on March 16, 2007

But show me an example. Please.

canonical examples. Enter at your own risk.

*wipes away a nostalgic tear*
posted by spiderwire at 1:19 PM on March 16, 2007

only if they're deep-fried in batter first.

(this why I love Paula Deen. 'Today were gonna take a block o' butter and soak it in beer batter. After you batter the butter, you fry him up in some lard, or if possible buffalo fat...'
posted by jonmc at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2007

Eh, Rashomon is just a Pulp Fiction rip-off anyway.
Potayto-potahto, I guess.
posted by Methylviolet at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2007

Now let's have a flameout about what constitutes a true, stereotypical flameout. Please?

Who's gonna invite languagehat?
posted by ericb at 1:22 PM on March 16, 2007

If unicorns existed, they'd be delicious.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:23 PM on March 16, 2007

Is it okay to declaw unicorns?
posted by ericb at 1:23 PM on March 16, 2007

Eh, Rashomon is just a Pulp Fiction rip-off anyway.

That's not how I remember it.
posted by Gamblor at 1:24 PM on March 16, 2007 [6 favorites]

But ooh thanks -- Spiderwire and Lentro. I wasn't here yet for these, and they promise funds of enjoyment.
posted by Methylviolet at 1:25 PM on March 16, 2007

Of course, that is moot, because he admits that he knows there is an issue in the original question.

An issue yes. But an issue that may or may not exist (and also may vary in severity) depending on jurisdiction. All things that were clarified in the answers to the offending question.
posted by juv3nal at 1:27 PM on March 16, 2007

That clinches it, EB. I'm gonna open a pub-grub place that only serves food made from mythological animals: Buffalo Pegasus Wings, Roast Centaur, and Unicorn Skewered On It's Own Horn. For the Imaginary Vegetarians, we'll have some kind of Manna Dip with Tortilla Chips.
posted by jonmc at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2007

Is it okay to declaw unicorns?

you're thinking of griffins ... translucent green griffins
posted by pyramid termite at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2007

No, jonmc, it's a Quail dip, and it doesn't come with chips- the bartenders throws them over the crowd whenever he feels like it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:29 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Of course, that is moot, because he admits that he knows there is an issue in the original question. So what is the question for? Nothing useful -- delete it.

No, no, I admit that I'm not sure whether there's an issue, and ask for clarification.

I then act surprised when the whole thing gets blown way out of proportion.

(Accusations of sock-puppetry I cannot, of course, refute in any meaningful sense. Some random admin might be able to draw conclusions from records of payment details and/or ip addresses or suchlike, but even those could be faked if I was a SUPER PEDOPHILE!)
posted by Kemayo at 1:32 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

seems to think is all just the hysteria-of-the-day

I'm aware that abuse happens. I'm aware that not everyone has honourable intentions.

But that doesn't make every interaction between minors and adults squicky. That doesn't make squicky the new breadth of communication provided us by the internet. The initial question was motivated by the same kind of chill that makes grade school teachers guarded in the way they might relate to pupils - the fear that all it takes is one conflicted loon misreading intent and a few overzealous officials to ruin a reputation. The questioner and those who answered were right to be cautious, but not because they were doing anything wrong. There's an unhealthy but very adamant suspicion in our air, fed by our own confusions about youth and maturity and sex and safety, illustrated by this thread, this occasionally hysterical thread, today.
posted by TimTypeZed at 1:33 PM on March 16, 2007

Quails aren't mythological, pink. And you won't stop me. I'm starting work on this enterprise right after I launch my line of Prehistoric Meat Snacks: Bronto-Jerky, Spicy Mammoth Chew and Slim Stegosaurus. Look for it at your local 7-11 soon.
posted by jonmc at 1:34 PM on March 16, 2007

"Eh, Rashomon is just a Pulp Fiction rip-off anyway."

When I first read that, I thought you said that Rashomon was a Pokemon rip-off.
posted by klangklangston at 1:36 PM on March 16, 2007

"If I were the father of a 17 year old daughter who was approached by an adult stranger in another state wanting to send her explicit stories to edit, I would find that adult and kick her/his ass nine ways to sunday, via the legal process if possible, or by any other means necessary to get that person to leave my child alone."

Huh. I'd be proud of daughter (who would presumably have learned all about sex 7-10 years earlier in state-sponsored sex ed class) for getting a semi-professional editing job at such a young age.

Maybe it's just because my big black hat with the belt buckle on the front is at the cleaners.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:36 PM on March 16, 2007

faster than a speeding dateline, stronger than a roofie cocktail, able to leap large preschools in a single lurch, it's a perv, it's insane, no, it's SUPER PEDOPHILE!
posted by pyramid termite at 1:36 PM on March 16, 2007

a stereotypical flameout starts with a passive-aggressive MeTa post, followed by a collective "you're crazy," followed by the OP ranting about whatever they brought up passive-aggressively in the first place.

sensing a flameout, everybody piles on, slowly antagonizing the OP until they explode in a bloodthirsty rage.

then y2karl posts some poems, and in ye olden days we had some inline images, and then the mods come along and close the thread. fin.
posted by spiderwire at 1:40 PM on March 16, 2007

SUPER PEDOPHILE wears his underwear outside his clothes, like Superman. But for different reasons. With his trusty sockpuppet at his side....
posted by tomatofruit at 1:42 PM on March 16, 2007

... throbbin the tool wonder
posted by pyramid termite at 1:43 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

He asked if it would be breaking the law. How is that asking if it would be a good idea to break the law?

but it seems to me this skirts a legal line by asking if it's a good idea to break the law

And even if he was asking if it was a good idea to break the law, this wouldn't skirt any legal line. Do you really think it's illegal to ask if I should do something illegal?

You make no sense in like 8 different ways.
posted by spaltavian at 1:45 PM on March 16, 2007

Ash=Toshiro Mifune
Brock=the husband
Misty=the woman
Tracy=the monk
Max=the witness woodsman guy
Aaand... the dagger is pikachu.

ZOMG Best. Analogy. Ever.
posted by Methylviolet at 1:47 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I want to quickly throw in here because i made allegation-y comments in AskMe to Kemayo. I think in the case where people are making a leery/legal question and not being anonymous then they should be explicit about what the situation is. If Kemayo (or however you spell it) had written "I am a 22-year-old manager of a fan fiction website doing collaborative editing with other people on the internet. I just learned one of the other editors might get into trouble for reading some explicit sexual things that I might send to them in the process of editing. I am trying to cover my own back, so how can I find out definitively whether the law would be broken if I did send this material (the person is 17 and lives in Oregon, and I am in California). I know there are rules about sending pornography to minors, but this is just the written word and I wonder if the rules are different. Help please?"

If the question was phrased that way I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Also, I was way too quick to judge. So I do again apologise. At a party last night, I met with another MeFite who also saw the thread and my comments before they were deleted and was in two minds, because she actually buys the books that Kemayo links to from his website and reads them with her boyfriend. Look's like there's a market. She loves the books, btw.
posted by parmanparman at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2007

So, where are the 17 year old girls?
posted by spaltavian at 1:53 PM on March 16, 2007

Joe Franklin made me edit steamy romance novels.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:02 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

If the question was phrased that way I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

Bzzzzt. Incorrect!

fourcheesemac was already predisposed to be offended by the subject matter no matter how benign it was.
posted by eyeballkid at 2:04 PM on March 16, 2007

Joe Franklin made me edit steamy romance novels.

On his couch for little people.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:06 PM on March 16, 2007

thanks for the walk down memory lane, spiderwire
posted by COBRA! at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2007

Joe Franklin made me edit steamy romance novels.

oh, my god, i found one
posted by pyramid termite at 2:10 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oregon law:

O.R.S. § 167.080

167.080. Displaying obscene materials to minors

(1) A person commits the crime of displaying obscene materials to minors if, being the owner, operator or manager of a business or acting in a managerial capacity, the person knowingly or recklessly permits a minor who is not accompanied by the parent or lawful guardian of the minor to enter or remain on the premises, if in that part of the premises where the minor is so permitted to be, there is visibly displayed:

(a) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture or other visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse; or
(b) Any book, magazine, paperback, pamphlet or other written or printed matter, however reproduced, that reveals a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse.

(2) Displaying obscene materials to minors is a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding ORS 161.635 and 161.655, a person convicted under this section may be sentenced to pay a fine, fixed by the court, not exceeding $10,000.

Laws 1971, c. 743, § 259.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:10 PM on March 16, 2007

Joe Franklin made me edit steamy romance novels.

The weird midget talk show host? you poor man.
posted by jonmc at 2:11 PM on March 16, 2007

Actually, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with being relegated to sidekick status. This new career as a sockpuppet sucks.

spatavian brings up a point I wanted to address in the original thread, but I somehow suspect doing so would turn that one into a flamewar, too.

I was never asking if it was a "good idea" to do this. A number of responses to that post seemed to be treating this as if it were a moral/ethical question. At the risk of sounding like an EEEEEEEEEEVIL SEXUAL PREDATOR, I must say that as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing morally wrong with sending sometimes-explicit written material to a 17-year-old who volunteered to check it for grammar/punctuation/flow issues. Your mileage may vary, of course, and that's fine. When I was 17, I was a college dropout, working full time at an architectural firm, living with my boyfriend, and writing ridiculously explicit smut in my spare time. I would have been absolutely livid if anyone had suggested I was somehow "endagered" by someone a few years older sending me a dirty story. But as I said, that's me, and I recognize that I was a rather unusual teenager. But the one who volunteered for this job (and no, I did not have any contact with her prior to her volunteering) is competent, and approached me exactly as one would expect an employer/employee relationship to begin, with a professional query letter and a sample of her work. Therefore I'm inclined to treat her in the same way, if possible.

Anyway, the point is, I simply wanted to know if sending stories containing sex scenes to a 17-year-old would be illegal. And nobody actually answered that--plenty of people were happy to tell Kemayo exactly what they thought of it, but until fourcheesemac's posting of the CA penal code in this thread, nobody bothered to address whether it was actually illegal or not. So in a way, I'm glad for this humongous flamefest, because at least I got something useful out of it.
posted by tomatofruit at 2:14 PM on March 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

ah. here's what i was looking for. languagehat gave the definitive account of trolls and flameouts on one of the classic threads:

Others, however... how can I put this? I don't think they're bad people, I don't think they're trying to make MetaFilter a worser place, but they have such a high opinion of their own ideas and reasoning and such a low opinion of most other people (and such a low boiling point) that they deliberately use "shocking" analogies or turns of phrase, confident that everyone with any sense will see their point and chuckle at their daring; then when they're called on it (usually with more outrage than is really sensible, given that this is MetaFilter and not the Oxford Union) they in turn get outraged and defensive and start accusing people of all manner of misfeasance. They can't just let it go. It doesn't do any good to tell them that being flip about rape, mutilation, &c. is a bad idea—it just makes them feel like Socrates being hemlocked for an opinion. There is no solution. But these MeTa threads are a hoot.

i think that just about says it all.
posted by spiderwire at 2:15 PM on March 16, 2007

haha, "endagered"--see? I need a proofreader.

ClaudiaCenter, thank you for that info. My Google-fu failed me on this one.
posted by tomatofruit at 2:16 PM on March 16, 2007

I dunno, this will always be the canonical flameout in my book. But the flamer-outer wasn't the person who started the thread, so perhaps it's not canonical after all.
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2007

So, where are the 17 year old girls?

Doeing mai spelchunking.

Dammit.
posted by juv3nal at 2:22 PM on March 16, 2007

About that restaurant of yours jonmc: don't forget the baked cyclops penis.
posted by puke & cry at 2:23 PM on March 16, 2007

ClaudiaCenter, thank you for that info.

As a parent to two teens, as a lawyer, as a former teen, I say (dramatic pause) ... You're welcome!

I hope you continue to find the humor in this first and very strange day of yours on Metafilter. W.o.w.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:33 PM on March 16, 2007

I didn't even get to the end of this thread, but I had to log in and comment on the incredible lameness of this callout, and some of the comments herein. This, in particular, is just breathtakingly...insane:

That so many people are so heated up in defense of the OP is really striking. I'm not flaming out or enraged. The rage is coming from the defenders of the thread here, and it's interesting to speculate why so many people would rise so angrily in defense of criminal solicitation of a minor.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:35 AM PST on March 16 [+][!]

I'm shocked that fourcheesemac claims to be a writer when his basic reading comprehension skills are so poor. How are posts in defense of someone's right to ask a question, a defense of the act which is the subject of the question? And how does merely asking the question make one guilty of the act described in the question? With this sort of attenuated logic, anybody who ever asks if something is illegal is guilty of performing the illegal act.

Hey, fourcheesemac, do you think it's illegal to stomp kittens?

^^^^^Look at me! I'm a kitten stomper now! Woo hoo!
posted by ereshkigal45 at 2:33 PM on March 16, 2007

Fuck 'em 4cm. It was a legitimate question. Undeserved pile on.
posted by vronsky at 2:33 PM on March 16, 2007

i still have the first Invisible Pink Unicorns i ever molested.
posted by quonsar at 2:34 PM on March 16, 2007

What? No one has paged languagehat yet?

Seriously. Here I was, patiently camped out in that other semi-flameout thread long after the fire had died out just because I had a good seat, and now I wander over here and discover I missed all the excitement.

I must say that as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing morally wrong with sending sometimes-explicit written material to a 17-year-old who volunteered to check it for grammar/punctuation/flow issues.

Same here. You're my kind of tomatofruit.
posted by languagehat at 2:37 PM on March 16, 2007

So in a way, I'm glad for this humongous flamefest, because at least I got something useful out of it.

Well, good for you tomatofruit, but we can't have you setting fire to one of our 800-contribution Answerers and burning them to a crisp every time you need a little more light to read by.
posted by jamjam at 2:40 PM on March 16, 2007

"...but we can't have you setting fire to one of our 800-contribution Answerers and burning them to a crisp every time you need a little more light to read by."

Why not?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:42 PM on March 16, 2007

Why not?

because we need to save them to power the servers if there's a blackout.
posted by spiderwire at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2007

Here I was, patiently camped out in that other semi-flameout thread long after the fire had died out just because I had a good seat, and now I wander over here and discover I missed all the excitement.

this was a subpar flameout. the other one had the quotable moments about Warhammer and gunfights. 5/10.
posted by spiderwire at 2:52 PM on March 16, 2007

On an unrelated note, do you suppose more episodes of mania begin during the first week of daylight savings than at other times during the year?
posted by jamjam at 2:56 PM on March 16, 2007

My Google-fu failed me on this one.

Google isn't the be-all and end-all of internet searches. Here's how you find this in about 30 seconds, without using AskMe:

Step 1: Google Oregon state law About the fourth result is this page.

Step 2: Click "Search: Full Measure Text," click the checkbox for "Oregon Revised Statutes," and enter obscenity minors in the search box. Chapter 167 is the first hit.

Lesson: when trying to find a state law, first find the web page for the full text of that state's laws, then browse or search from there. Don't think you can Google directly for the particular law you're interested in.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:04 PM on March 16, 2007

Wow, my response was similar to 4cm's in the original question. I guess my knee-jerk reaction was a little premature. Thank you metafilter.
posted by Totally Zanzibarin' Ya at 3:33 PM on March 16, 2007

Something to cool this thread down with. (Not Safe For Work. Do not click on this link if you are underage or it is illegal for you to watch this type of material in your state/country/province/cave.)
posted by eyeballkid at 3:34 PM on March 16, 2007

You're awfully Godamned helpful for a Devil's Advocate. Hmm...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:38 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

tomatofruit: I would have been absolutely livid if anyone had suggested I was somehow "endagered" by someone a few years older sending me a dirty story. But as I said, that's me, and I recognize that I was a rather unusual teenager.

At 17 I was studying law at university, living out of home and working a part-time job to pay my rent. I was perfectly capable of fending for myself and would have been baffled that anyone could even be having this conversation. Maybe kid would be better off being raised in such a way that they have the moral values and social skills to protect themselves rather than worrying so much about shielding them from the world.

The whole debate is just so bizarre when you consider that in only a few mouse-clicks you can be looking at full-motion video of vinyl-clad German pee fetishists fisting each other. Without ever having to confirm your age at all.
posted by tim_in_oz at 3:44 PM on March 16, 2007

When I was 13 or 14, one of my Junior High teachers took me to see a midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show in Seattle (this was the late 70s, when it was still an event). Later, she "assigned" me to read Rubyfruit Jungle and The Story of O as my summer reading assignment. She actually wrote that in my yearbook for everyone to see. My parents weren't too concerned about it because I'd already read practically every adult science fiction book in the local branch of the library by then, and they'd actually taken me to see my first gay burlesque revue a year earlier because a close family friend had a starring role. True story. What they didn't know is that I was scarred for life at The Rocky Horror Picture Show by a piece of flying toast, and The Story of O gave me a paper cut that still wakes me up nights.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:10 PM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

Maybe someone upthread has said this already (I ain't reading 272 comments) but the premise of the question struck me as strange and implausible: The question-asker is so in need of proofreading assistance that he's contemplating sends his dirty short stories to a minor? Is this thousands and thousands of pages of stories? Why can't the questioner just proof-read them himself?

I think the questioner is just a pervert looking for an excuse to get his filthy fantasies into a young mind.
posted by jayder at 4:18 PM on March 16, 2007

Maybe someone upthread has said this already

Yeah. The author herself answered all of your concerns. And, yeah, you're wrong.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:22 PM on March 16, 2007

Note: when presented with a great big thread on touchy subject, probably best to skip the reading part and jump to the dismissive smear bit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:23 PM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

@$%#*&!!!! PET PEAVE!!! PET PEAVE!!! PET PEAVE!!! Don't tell us you can't be bothered to read the thread before commenting: Just display your ignorance proudly, like the rest of us!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:27 PM on March 16, 2007

Problem: Thread too hilarious; causing compulsive refreshing and ignoring of more pressing tasks.

Solution: ???

jayder, I'd respond to your comment, but that's an awful lot of words, and I'm not sure I'm up to reading all that. I'd rather spend my energy on casting aspersions on your character instead.
posted by tomatofruit at 4:31 PM on March 16, 2007

I'm holding you to your stance, here, cortex. Won't do to backpedal, mister. You said jump in, and I aim to jump the frick in from here on out.
posted by cgc373 at 4:32 PM on March 16, 2007

fourcheesemac is Jean M. Auel in real life. The mind boggles, really.
posted by stet at 4:35 PM on March 16, 2007

I think the questioner is just a pervert looking for an excuse to get his filthy fantasies into a young mind.

I think your point of view will not be welcome, as that's how this pile on was started.
posted by Big_B at 4:36 PM on March 16, 2007

I may be "fucking crazy," a "moron, " an "asshole," or whatever else has been tossed at me in this thread.

Oh stop with the martyrdom. You were insultiing the entire community from the very beginning of this thread.

I shouldn't have bothered. If people are comfortable with AskMe as a place where child molesters are enabled, fine with me. After all, lots of people around here also think it's perfectly fine to steal music and software and trade tips for doing so too.
posted by justgary at 4:36 PM on March 16, 2007

And bear in mind that the OP has already engaged in conversation, or so the question implies, with this "editor." Depending on the content of that conversation, a law may have already been broken.

I really do feel that, like Van Gogh's genius, the sheer insanity of that sentence won't be appreciated for a while.
posted by nathancaswell at 4:41 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

It was the law of thermodynamics that was broken. 'Cause this whole story is just too hawt!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:43 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

"When I was 13 or 14, one of my Junior High teachers took me to see a midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show in Seattle (this was the late 70s, when it was still an event)."

Early teens, late '70s, Seattle, Rocky Horror -- yikes, I might have been there too, at the Neptune. But it wasn't a teacher who took me, and my mom thought I was at a friend's slumber party. Ha!
posted by litlnemo at 4:44 PM on March 16, 2007

This thread and the precursor were the funniest things I've read all night. Thanks!

4cm, does your kid have Down syndrome? I might understand your attitude then, but dude - the kid in question is SEVENTEEN. Get a grip, and some perspective.
posted by goo at 4:47 PM on March 16, 2007

Ha! Should have previewed. I went to see Bad Boy Bubby with my high school film and media class.

be still ya little cunt!
posted by goo at 4:48 PM on March 16, 2007

I aim to jump the frick in from here on out.

fuck. jump the fuck in. c'mon, we're all adults here. probably.

does "the fuck" operate as an interjection in that phrase? is there a specific sort of interjection that's inserted between a verb and a preposition? languagehat, help!
posted by spiderwire at 5:07 PM on March 16, 2007

Such zeal to protect the general populace against potential perverts on the Internet and, at least indirectly, help governments foster the proper attitude of citizens to online behavior that is even remotely questionable.

Perhaps all the negative emotional energy can be turned 180 degrees to help others too quickly accused of Bad Things. With that in mind, here's my feeble attempt.

(Of course, like me, you could view that image inline if you had installed an extension by a nameless random idiot).
posted by mdevore at 5:09 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Darn, here I am possibly the only fully qualified 17 year old girl on Mefi and I miss the big blowout. Oh well. I guess I'll just go ahead and post my useless opinion anyway.

I know the internet has made me more perverted than most of my friends, but it's not the only factor at work. My upbringing and personality also I think have added to it. Sometimes I wish I was a bit more sheltered, but then again, even this kind of knowledge is power- when some guy eventually wants me to do (insert deviant act), I'll know what he's talking about and be able to make an informed decision about what I want to do- without relying on said biased guy.

Yeah, I doubt that I can really add anything to the conversation but I can't resist the urge to chime in when you guys start talking about teenagers. Sometimes you're right, sometimes I'm pretty sure you haven't actually interacted with a teenager in the last decade.

PS: anyone who wants me to edit their dirty stories (not likely with my sentence structure), email is in my profile :P
posted by MadamM at 5:12 PM on March 16, 2007

jump the fuck in... does "the fuck" operate as an interjection in that phrase? is there a specific sort of interjection that's inserted between a verb and a preposition? languagehat, help!

Well, it's an adverbial phrase, I guess, but as to how exactly it works... Fuck if I know. I knew I fuckin' should have paid more fucking attention in syntax class. Absofuckinlutely.
posted by languagehat at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Anybody got the odds on MadamM being Stone Phillips?
posted by Tenuki at 5:27 PM on March 16, 2007

Crap. I just realized that by acknowledging that I, a minor, am aware that sex exists and even think about it sometimes, I have probably broken a few laws and can expect to have that creepy Dateline guy bang down my door and tell me what a terrible dirty girl I am any minute. Oops.
posted by MadamM at 5:30 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Don't worry. Anyone who claims to be a 17-year-old girl on the internet is automatically assumed to be a 50-year-old fat and balding divorced guy in Michigan.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:34 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I have probably broken a few laws and can expect to have that creepy Dateline guy bang down my door and tell me what a terrible dirty girl I am any minute.

they don't call it DATEline for nothing ... expect to have to show him how fully qualified you are
posted by pyramid termite at 5:34 PM on March 16, 2007

Anyone who claims to be a 17-year-old girl on the internet is automatically assumed to be a 50-year-old fat and balding divorced guy in Michigan.

now wait one goddamned minute ... i AM NOT BALDING!!
posted by pyramid termite at 5:35 PM on March 16, 2007

Is anyone else bummed that it was Fourcheesemac and not Sukiari who ended uptaking his toys and going home?

Fourcheesemac = (mostly) thoughtful user who, in the course of his nearly-year-long membership, has had 128 contributions favorited, and has provided several best answers on Askme.

Sukiari= Guy who, in the course of defending trollish comments about domestic violence, felt the need to mention both his mad sk1llz with a firearm, and his wife, Morgan Fairchild, whom he's slept with.

The internets are no damn fair.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 5:38 PM on March 16, 2007

pet peeve
posted by vronsky at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2007

Is anyone else bummed that it was Fourcheesemac and not Sukiari who ended uptaking his toys and going home?

Well yeah, but at least someone flamed out. I was worried there for a while.
posted by grobstein at 5:48 PM on March 16, 2007

Is anyone else bummed that it was Fourcheesemac and not Sukiari who ended uptaking his toys and going home?

i thought he left. point me toward the flameout!
posted by spiderwire at 5:50 PM on March 16, 2007

When I was 17 I was already on my third husband, was working on my dissertation and wrote Sunday-strength crossword puzzles in my spare moments.

I am so awesome.
posted by pinky at 5:51 PM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

pet peeve
Krap!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:52 PM on March 16, 2007

Darn, here I am possibly the only fully qualified 17 year old girl on Mefi. . .

PS: anyone who wants me to edit their dirty stories (not likely with my sentence structure), email is in my profile :P

MadamM is an FBI agent.
posted by mlis at 5:57 PM on March 16, 2007

does "the fuck" operate as an interjection in that phrase? is there a specific sort of interjection that's inserted between a verb and a preposition?

I'd class it as an intensifier, functionally.
posted by Listener at 5:57 PM on March 16, 2007

This is awesome. I didn't even have to read any of the comments here-- all I saw was this: If people are comfortable with AskMe as a place where child molesters are enabled, fine with me. (from the OP), and I knew how this was going to go.

Oh, and HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ha haha ha.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2007

He didn't exactly flameout, but he did change his profile to say "On vacation from MeFi" so I think we get some points.
posted by nathancaswell at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2007

Gone fishin. [NOT SMELLY!]
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:15 PM on March 16, 2007

he did change his profile to say "On vacation from MeFi" so I think we get some points.

i thought you meant Suki.
posted by spiderwire at 6:26 PM on March 16, 2007

Sorry to dissapoint.
posted by nathancaswell at 6:32 PM on March 16, 2007

Anybody got the odds on MadamM being Stone Phillips?

My bet is she's not Stone, but actually Chris Hansen.
posted by ericb at 6:40 PM on March 16, 2007

I'm pretty fond of the way a euphemism like "the frick" can be more offensive than the fuck it replaces. Ticklish little suckers, employ 'em at will. [NOT ADOLESCENT!]
posted by cgc373 at 6:41 PM on March 16, 2007

PS: anyone who wants me to edit their dirty stories (not likely with my sentence structure), email is in my profile :P

Mm hmm, sure thing. PARTY VAN
posted by puke & cry at 6:42 PM on March 16, 2007

If I was the father of a 17 year old girl receiving "explicit" written material to proofread for free from a stranger in another state -- that is if she volunteered the information 'cuz I wouldn't bother to ask -- I'd roll my eyes and/or shrug at the idea of her working for FREE. As to the subject matter, or what "naughty" things she might be doing in email or with her webcam, well, at least that won't be knocking her up and/or giving her diseases. (Though to avoid that I'd have bowls of condoms placed around the place, to spare her the embarrassment I had to go through of asking my dad for a Trojan allowance.)

Kids today are so sheltered, inexperienced and naive. When I was 17 I was already a retired hookerboy fisting 15 year old virgins at Quaker cookie bakes. If the worst a parent has to worry about is a spicy text file that's too damn bad. After all she's 17 YEARS old, not 17 months; if parents won't grow up at least allow your sprogs to.

Doesn't Joyce Carol Oates have a Mefi account?
posted by davy at 6:53 PM on March 16, 2007

Does "fuck fuck fuck fuck" work like "buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo"?
posted by davy at 6:54 PM on March 16, 2007

Anyone who claims to be a 17-year-old girl on the internet is automatically assumed to be a 50-year-old fat and balding divorced guy in Michigan.

53, even.
posted by quonsar at 7:14 PM on March 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

Oh my goed you guys
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:26 PM on March 16, 2007

Oh! My coed, you guys!
posted by Methylviolet at 7:37 PM on March 16, 2007

What kind of pedophile would waste his/her time on a 17-year old? A 17 year old is just another adult who doesn't have as many rights because they're still kinda dumb, except, you know, all those states (and countries) where 17 year olds are considered adults.
posted by elr at 7:43 PM on March 16, 2007

Fuck isn't a place, so no. OTOH, you could string an arbitrary number of fucks in a row and just call it interjection:

Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! FUCK!
posted by owhydididoit at 7:47 PM on March 16, 2007

you could string an arbitrary number of fucks in a row

got an mpeg?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:55 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, that was all seriously retarded.

All the more so, when one actually thinks for but a moment what many 17 year olds can and do do. FFS, there are some that are married, some serving in the military, some running their own businesses.

But the whole world comes to an end if she were to decide to read porn.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:13 PM on March 16, 2007

If I had gotten here earlier I would have tried to antagonize 4cm even further by saying this: When your kid (male or female) reaches the age of 17 all you need to know is that you have lost the war. It's over. Pack your bags and go home. You have no control of how your kid turns out. Your childs sexual identity was probably already determined several years earlier.

Other this flameout had a nice beat that you can dance to. I give it an 8 out of 10.
posted by Justin Case at 8:14 PM on March 16, 2007

Not that I want to keep this going or anything...

The call-out was not saying a 17-year-old should not read porn, see porn (in or out of the woods), engage in the acts typically featured in porn, or star in actual video porn for all of us to see. Teenagers are going to do what they are going to do, and after all, we are having this conversation on the internet. It is for porn. Yay porn! OK?

The call-out was saying Kemayo's question was such a squicky one that it was inappropriate for AskMe. And having a problem with an adult (or his sockpuppet) sending porn to someone he knows to be under eighteen (for proofreading, for the love of Christ) is not the same as having a problem with porn. I say the question is bullshit -- nobody is as dumb as Kemayo claims to be. But hell, maybe they are.

Let's talk about Rashopoke some more. Now I'm thinking the monk is more of a Professor Oak analogue.
posted by Methylviolet at 8:30 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

you jackin' it?
posted by AwkwardPause at 8:41 PM on March 16, 2007

You rollin'?
posted by Methylviolet at 8:41 PM on March 16, 2007

The call-out was saying Kemayo's question was such a squicky one that it was inappropriate for AskMe.

Oh, he was wrong about that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:06 PM on March 16, 2007

Retards. All of you.
posted by Dataphage at 9:34 PM on March 16, 2007

Just thought I'd let you all know, I turned 18 since this thread started so it's OK if you want me to edit your nasty, nasty stories.
posted by barely legal at 9:37 PM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Fuck isn't a place, so no. OTOH, you could string an arbitrary number of fucks in a row and just call it interjection:

You could also add an arbitrary number of "ity"s, "Bugger!"s, and "Bollocks" to that, and call it a Richard Curtis script.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:51 PM on March 16, 2007

nobody is as dumb as Kemayo claims to be.

Have you seen the "should I eat this" questions?

Fuck 'em 4cm. It was a legitimate question. Undeserved pile on.
posted by vronsky at 2:33 PM PST on March 16 [+] [!]

Sockpuppet!
posted by the other side at 9:56 PM on March 16, 2007

Fuck 'em 4cm.

I really don't think 4 centimeters would make for a pleasant fuck.
posted by jonmc at 10:00 PM on March 16, 2007

Yeah, even wide that's a little little, jonmc.
posted by cgc373 at 10:04 PM on March 16, 2007

10 cm = fully dilated

/skipped all the riff-raff above, saw last comment

//also drank too much tonight
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 10:54 PM on March 16, 2007

Wow. Fourcheesemac has been here for a year?

I've been here longer than someone who is FLAMING OUT? Man. I feel old. I may not be a balding fifty year old man in Michigan, but I...

What was I saying? Fucking senility.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:58 PM on March 16, 2007

Pshaw, youngster.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:28 PM on March 16, 2007

Ok, whose sockpuppet is it? Own up, you fucker. It's not like you're gonna get a lot of use out of it.
posted by puke & cry at 11:55 PM on March 16, 2007

"Just thought I'd let you all know, I turned 18 since this thread started so it's OK if you want me to edit your nasty, nasty stories."

Hi Special Agent! I bet your momma musta really loved you since she named you Special!
posted by davy at 12:05 AM on March 17, 2007

After reading his thread... I'm shocked. There are entire forums with thousands of teenager and adult fanfiction writers who like to write dirty dirty stories, having as betareaders (slang for editor-proofreader) their own fellow forumites. YES, ADULT WRITERS WITH TEENAGERS AS BETAREADERS. OH GOD HOW AWFUL.

So, yes. I'm shocked by how prude people tend to be in their own ignorance.
posted by Memo at 12:30 AM on March 17, 2007

All the more so, when one actually thinks for but a moment what many 17 year olds can and do do. FFS, there are some that are married, some serving in the military, some running their own businesses.

Heck, some of the 17-yr olds I know are raising kids of their own.

Hmmm...since they're both 17-yr-olds AND parents I should ask them where they stand on this issue.
posted by vacapinta at 1:01 AM on March 17, 2007

I'm opposed to paedophiles as they come.
posted by flabdablet at 6:35 AM on March 17, 2007

Me, I'm opposed to pedophiles all of the time.
posted by the other side at 7:57 AM on March 17, 2007

Just an interesting perspective here in Michigan— Here, we can have sex with 16 year olds, but can't show them porn for two more years after that.
posted by klangklangston at 8:18 AM on March 17, 2007

What if you show them porn while having sex with them? You'll get busted for the porn showing but the sex?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:27 AM on March 17, 2007

What if it's a tape of you two having sex?
posted by spaltavian at 11:28 AM on March 17, 2007

Take it to AskMe spaltavian. I'm serious, that is a truly great question!
posted by Catfry at 12:11 PM on March 17, 2007

"I really don't think 4 centimeters would make for a pleasant fuck."

Didn't hear you complaining last night.
posted by vronsky at 1:31 PM on March 17, 2007

That was you? Sorry about the Raid. I thought it was a mosquito.
posted by jonmc at 1:33 PM on March 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I was going to write a comment fable about The Princess and The Pee-Pee, but really, it wouldn't have helped anyone.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 4:15 PM on March 17, 2007

I'm 17 years old.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:50 PM on March 17, 2007

Aw, damn. I could have had you edit it.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 6:01 PM on March 17, 2007

Is it legal for seventeen year-olds to view MetaFilter? There are discussions that have explicit adult content. Are kids allowed to read about female circumcision? Elephant piss? How to get rid of the body (no, it's for a story, honest!)?

I think we should do the safest thing: lock up all the children.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:14 PM on March 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think we should do the safest thing: lock up all the children.

but they keep whining for food and that the basement's too cold...
posted by spiderwire at 7:42 PM on March 17, 2007

we can chop up some sukiari to feed them
posted by pyramid termite at 7:47 PM on March 17, 2007

I think we should do the safest thing: lock up all the children.

Maybe just one.
posted by owhydididoit at 11:15 PM on March 17, 2007

Okay, I'm thinking we start a controversial 'confessional narrative' blog about a seventeen-year-old freelance proofreader and cock-hungry sex worker. We'll make a mint on the paperback rights, and this book shall be called: Blue Pencil.
posted by RokkitNite at 7:06 AM on March 18, 2007

Hard Blue Pencil
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:17 PM on March 18, 2007

Blue Pen Is Hard: How Young Writers Handle Porn.
posted by cgc373 at 9:10 AM on March 19, 2007

« Older A season for reason that's pleasin' | Removing Favorites At Point Of Origin = YAY! Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

MetaTalk

Are you kidding? March 16, 2007 9:09 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share