From my high school hometown comes a story of a hero and her persecution by a fascist government.
A Missouri woman who posed topless in a hot tub with her teenage daughter faces misdemeanor child endangerment charges, prosecutors say.
The photo, taken by another daughter with a phone camera, was posted on Snapchat and circulated among students at two high schools in the Wentzville area, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
St. Charles County Prosecutor Tim Lohmar said both the 50-year-old mother and her 14-year-old daughter had covered their nipples, suggesting they were posing for the camera and expected the photo to be circulated. The girl has already undergone court-ordered counseling for circulating nude pictures of herself last year.
The clear response to this is:
Earlier this year, Kaitlyn Hunt, an 18-year-old — a high school senior, was expelled and charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child 12 to 16 years of age (in this case: 14) which is normally something the popular culture frowns upon, but since the other party was another girl, it became a tragic love story or something and there was a big “Free Kate” movement put forward. The parents of the 14 year old girl in the relationship with Kate said they had to go to the law first because after telling Miss Hunt (senior) that Kate needed to “leave [their] daughter alone” and couldn’t stop their lesbian sex to the point of the younger girl sneaking out of the house and blah blah. So fine. Whatever ones position on that situation, there was at least some history and attempts made at avoiding legal entanglement regarding actual sexual activity.
But hand-bra shots of mom and daughter in a hot tub thrown out to Snapchat?
The mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment…
St. Charles County Prosecutor Tim Lomar told local media the woman should be held to account on the charges, which were filed December 12.
“The mother was very clearly present, involved when the picture was taken,” Lomar told St. Louis television station KMOV in an interview. “It certainly had some sexual overtones. This was a mother who made a very poor choice.”
I kid about the unsung heroism of this mother (cuz-lulz) and her unjust persecution but really… it really is unnecessary hassle-by-government into a matter that’s not a big deal. As initially shocking as the summary sounds, examine the logic behind the known facts of this case…
Pictured: Not the photo…
THE PHOTO: Missouri doesn’t have a law forcing females to cover their breasts on private property. Female breasts, however, despite being the milk-sacks of life to our species, are highly sexualized by males and thusly considered indecent by Western Civilization when exposed, similarly to an exposed penis. For that reason, female breasts are legally classified as nudity and photographs of exposed breasts fall under regulations of such. However, the standard for nudity of the breast is universally the nipples. Indeed, it is not the female breast that is considered indecent, but rather the female nipple, and everyone knows it. That’s why you can cover a boob with pasties and avoid public nudity citations. Well… there is no nipple reported in the photo, so there is no nudity. With no nudity there has to be evidence of abuse or something illegal. Hand-bra’s are usually sexually suggestive and the girl is a minor, but its one friggin picture with zero evidence that the mother had any knowledge of its distribution.
Pictured: Not the photo, either.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES: The picture was taken by a daughter and sent via Snapchat (an app that sends pictures [between users] that are only visible for a few seconds and then deleted) so the boy she sent the awesome shot to either saved it and illegally distributed it or more likely (since no allegations or charges have been made to that affect), this girl sent the pic to everyone on her friggin address book and some buzzkill in the class tattled to their parents. But so what? The most this is is tacky if intentional and, if the mothers profuse claim that this was not posed is true then at worst this was a victimization since it would mean 2 people were breaking no law when a minor took a photograph and distributed it without permission to a person or people who in turn distributed it without permission and got government goons to bully an innocent family in order to protect this Christian country from public sin.