I picked up a newspaper to read over lunch, and I come across this on the front page:
Mom’s sleuthing snares sex suspect
Investigators credit a cyber-savvy Ramsey mom with helping nab a 42-year-old Pennsylvania man who they said had sex with her 15-year-old daughter after they met on a social networking site.
The entire article is like a confluence of social anxieties, being equal parts sexism, slut-shaming, and fear of technology.
“It’s a complete shock,” said the woman…, “She hasn’t dated much. She doesn’t wear makeup. She’s not one of these ‘hot’ kids, strutting all over the place.
“It shows how scary the Internet can be.”
That’s right. There are sluts who wear makeup, and nice girls who don’t date (much), but Teh Scary Internets can make nice girls have consensual sex.
As you read the article, outlining how the 15 year-old girl met the 42 year-old man for sex at a hotel twice, you come to understand that this girl was definitely making a choice. Now, the man is clearly a sick motherfucker, but the girl? Chose to have sex. Despite the fact that she doesn’t wear makeup.
Her mother is clearly confused. Only painted strumpets have sex. Therefore, some other explanation for her daughter’s abberation must be sought, and fortunately, it’s right there on the desk: The computer. The computer made her do it! If it weren’t for “social networking sites” her daughter would still be a virgin—because that’s exactly the truth about unpainted girls in the pre-Internet days. They were all virgins. And still are.
Inside [the suspect’s] truck [the police] found a laptop with broadband access and a global positioning device that Maloney used to guide him on the more than 100-mile trip from his Pennsylvania home, said Joseph Macellaro, acting chief of detectives for the Prosecutor’s Office.
“This was a pretty determined individual,” Macellaro said. “Obviously, this person is somebody who would be considered dangerous.”
OHNOEZ! Only determined perverts have laptops! And GPS units!
Sgt. Andrew Donofrio, who heads the prosecutor’s Computer Crimes Unit, said credit is due to such mothers – however nosy – who relentlessly investigate potential indecencies on their children’s computers.
“She took a proactive step,” Donofrio said.
The mother said it simply seemed the right thing to do.
“I guess all the warnings that you read about as a parent are true — that you do have to monitor them non-stop,” she said.
I’m tempted to just leave this part without comment. Because obviously, non-stop monitoring helped so much here. I mean, yes, it stopped this pervert. And one less free-roaming pervert, yay. But in what way is that parenting? The girl isn’t even in the equation, is she? Non-stop spying monitoring isn’t helping this girl make good choices, or even working towards understanding what choices she actually made.
The mother also took the computer away. So now I suppose the girl will have to wear makeup.
So wait, all I have to do in order to start having sex is paint myself up like all the (other) strumpets?
Unfortunately, this kind of “parenting” seems all too common these days.
Hi,
I just came over from Pandagon. This is a great post. I’m so angry over shows like, To Catch a Predator, that spends all of its considerable resources on humiliating men and scaring parents. I’d like them at least once to consider a) how often are teen girls really having sex with over age guys, b) why are they having sex with over age guys, and c) how can parents help them make better choices? But then, like all news these days, its not about informing or helping teens and parents. It’s just about racing to the bottom of the barrel. Gah.
Very well said, carovee, thanks for coming by.
This post reminds me of what a lot of gay guys hear when they come out to their parents:
“Who did this to you?!”
And of course, no one came out before the Internet either. Silly of me to omit that.
He was ‘determined’. Which apparently is the same as ‘dangerous’.
I’m sorry, but if we can put the fact that she is 15 on pause for one moment… who the hell wouldn’t drive 100 miles to get laid?
Okay, unpause. I shouldn’t have said it.
I just really love how the presence of a GPS and a laptop proves how dangerous he is.
Because nice people don’t have such things in their cars.
I get the part about internet hysteria and all. I’m just not sure a case where a girl was raped by a guy she wouldn’t have met absent the internet is the best example of it.
Tom, because girls were never molested before the Internet?
The truth is, there’s no evidence at all that the rate of molestation has been in any way affected by new technology.
De, in this case, it’s pretty clear that she would not have met this sexual predator absent the internet. (Maybe she would have been abused by someone she knew, but that’s purely speculation.) That’s not a comment about internet hysteria in general; that’s a comment about this case.
And I think the problem with this post is that you’re applying what you think about internet hysteria in general (on which I agree with you) to a particular case that it doesn’t really fit.
That’s true. But I don’t find it problematic (I mean I don’t find the post problematic; I certainly have big problems with girls being molested). What I’ve been doing for a while now is writing about the intersection of language and the ordinary with broader social issues, particularly feminism. What is most interesting to me in terms of blogging is the way the article is written and the mother’s perceptions of what happened.
> I just really love how the presence of a GPS and a laptop proves how dangerous he is.
Wait, does it count if my laptop *has* GPS software installed in it and a GPS device plugged into it? Gasp, I’m evil and I didn’t even know it!