WI - Amy Smalley for explicit sex talk with sons, Pardeeville, 2007

[zadari]

my son asked me about sex and what a bj was(when he was about 13 ) .. i said .. something you dont need to know about till your 50 .. then we laughed and i told him and described what happens when and ect i tried not to be too explicit cuz i was really uncomfortable talking to him about it (being it was my first time discussing it with my child ))but i wanted him to understand that its something that could change his life std wise or pregnancy wise and i had to tell him how the stds spread with sexual contact such as mucus and sperm ect... and beleive it or not to this day he is almost 17 now and is still a virgin .. he decided he wants to be married before he does that .he really wants to love the woman . he said i have other ways to satisfy my needs but im not going to catch aids while doing so . he is deathly afraid of std's and said that is a risk ill take when i really love a girl enough to do it . im SO PROUD of my son for this !! i didnt think i scared him while talking to him about it and i asked if i had and he said no mom . i just want to be with a woman when i am ready and im not yet .i said well that is a wonderful decision and im very proud of how adult your being about this

 

[JanetElaine]

That's great, Zadari!

 

[CyberLaw]

She pleaded guilty to "save the children from testifying in open court". O.K., sure and to ensure that her "discussions" and the details of those discussion are not a matter of public record and media interest.

Telling your child about sex and sex acts and describing your own "intimate" sex acts with men are far different.

I cannot even approach the subject with our oldest. Dad has "explained the birds and the bees" to him and the school gave out condoms. That is education. Now if Dad went into "intimate" details about our activities in the bedroom, that is crossing the line.

Oh by the way the plea agreement was to plead guilty to a minor change not a felony. Her lawyer tried to argue that her acts were protected by free speech between a parent and child. He lost.

The Mother went too far, by teaching her children `different techniques in sex acts` going into explicit details of her sexual experiences, and showing the boys sex toys.

www.courttv.com

Haffner, the former president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, reinforced the importance of parents speaking with their children about sex, saying children need to hear the information from their parents, but she said the level of detail makes a difference.
"Parents may say, 'Oral sex is when you put your mouth on another person's genitals,'" Haffner said. "But, if you go into technique with your kids, saying 'Sometimes it feels good if you do this' ... I think there is a level of description that could be too much."


Apparently the 11 year old boy at the time, objected and told the therapist that `his mom went into too much details and he wanted her to keep her personal and intimate sexual encounters to herself and keep them personal.

 

[sherri79]

i think what was said makes the difference here. was mom a pervert that got off on telling her kids about her sex life or a mom who was trying to teach her kids about sex. for example... dad sits his 13 year old daughter down and tells her...

1 men love oral sex. soon boys will start asking for it. they will tell you anything to get it. oral sex is when you use your mouth to do blah blah and can cause a std. baby you are to young for this but if you do it please use a condom.

2 baby girl i want to talk to you about oral sex. oral sex is when you place your mouth on the sex organ of another person. i love it when a girl licks me on my ... when she performs. personally when a girl does .... it is my favorite part. when i cant find a girl i use this toy. see how it is shaped like a mouth. a little KY and it feels almost real.

guy 1 is a dad who may make his daughter uncomfortable but was trying to educate her. guy 2 crossed the line and did the spoken equivalent of showing her porn. all we know is the mother showed the children her sex toys and told them about her sexual experiences. without knowing the details i can not say if this mother crossed the line but i can see the need for this law.

 

[Wudge]

Exactly! I don't think it's possible for any parent to discuss sex with their children in a manner that SOMEBODY else won't find inappropriate. Whether we agree with this particular parent isn't the point here!

Perfectly said.

And what is the penalty for disagreement? Why it's a "felony" charge from some mindless DA or ADA.

And what is the basis for a parent becoming a felon? It's a parent who "exposes a child to harmful descriptions". That's a FELONY.

In the immortal words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

[mysteriew]

One thing I noticed is they don't say who initated the conversation. Did one of the kids have questions? While I don't exactly agree with the mother using her personal experiences, I don't know the context it was done in. Maybe a kid asked her if she had done that. A sex toy? Did one of the kids ask her what a (...) was?
There is a lot left out here. And maybe she didn't do it right. But as a parent of two boys I can see it being difficult for her to discuss it, and that she most likely did the best she could. If she didn't discuss sex with them, who would?

 

[Nova]

I still shudder at my mother's explanations of sex 45 years ago! She isn't the most sensitive or tactful speaker. But she was a single mother and she was trying to do the right thing. Why should she be declared a criminal just because she was awkward with the subject? 'Cause let's face it: the alternative is learning stuff on the streets, and those explanations usually aren't so tactful either.

 

[csds703]

I still shudder at my mother's explanations of sex 45 years ago! She isn't the most sensitive or tactful speaker. But she was a single mother and she was trying to do the right thing. Why should she be declared a criminal just because she was awkward with the subject? 'Cause let's face it: the alternative is learning stuff on the streets, and those explanations usually aren't so tactful either.

My daughter used to come home with the weirdest things she heard from her friends.
My favorite was, when she was 14, she told me that "lots of kids at school watch porn to learn technique."

 

[Seven]

Exactly! I don't think it's possible for any parent to discuss sex with their children in a manner that SOMEBODY else won't find inappropriate. Whether we agree with this particular parent isn't the point here!

I agree!

There is something in the article that makes me wonder:

"Smalley said the charges were filed after she brought her sons to counseling in an attempt to help them from getting into trouble. One of her sons told authorities he did not think the discussion was appropriate."

So, the mom never would have been charged with anything if one of her own sons (whether 12- or 16-year-old isn't revealed) hadn’t “told authorities” that the discussion affected him as inappropriate, but why it affected him that way or why he “told on” his mom isn’t further explained.

 

[mysteriew]

LOL, I can see the twelve year old coming home from school with questions or inaccurate facts and Mom trying to explain. And I can also see the 16 year old being uncomfortable with MOM talking about that.

 

[Ang50]

what did this mother tell her children that made the counselor think she needed to call it in? once the police heard from the children why did they not drop it and instead take it to the DA? once the DA got the case why didnt he say this is just sex education between a parent and a child? when her lawyer heard the story why didnt he say lets go to a jury? IMO what ever she said to the kids had to cross the line. so many steps from people who heard the details of what she told her kids and nobody backs her up. 1 or 2 or 3 people might be a prude and twist normal into perverted but every person along the way?
.

You raise some very good points - and I agree that we just don't know the facts. Even if we did, we might all have different opinions. In fact - I think there was a story recently on Websleuths about a mom who took cute nakie pics of her kids, took them to Walmart and got arrested.

The counselor might be young, and concerned about being a mandatory reporter. The police in a small town - well - let's just say that sometimes they're not the brightest bulbs and definitely not always educated in legal nuances that this case would require. The DA - that all depends... the DA and the ADA are both women - which may have led to more understanding for this woman or not... The lawyer - I'm going to check, but I'm guessing she likely had a public defender or inexpensive attorney. Even if she didn't, she probably doesn't have a lot of $$. Any reasonable attorney would say - it will cost you $$ to fight this, or you can plead this out.

A jury trial would cost thousands - if not tens of thousands.

 

[Ang50]

She had a public defender appointed. People generally have to be pretty poor to qualify for a PD. Both PD's that she had were fairly experienced, but any PD's caseload is pretty heavy.

Her attorney also filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the judge. It also looks like the ADA fought pretty hard to keep this charge alive.

Wisconsin Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) provides as follows:
Any person who has attained the age of 17 and who, with knowledge of the character and content of the description or narrative account, verbally communicates, by any means, a harmful description or narrative account to a child, with or without monetary consideration, is guilty of a Class I felony if any of the following applies:
1. The person knows or reasonably should know that the child has not attained the age of 18 years.
2. The person has face-to-face contact with the child before or during the communication.
For purposes of the statute, "[h]armful description or narrative account" means "any explicit and detailed description or narrative account of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children." Section 948.11(1)(ag).

 

[Wudge]

She had a public defender appointed. People generally have to be pretty poor to qualify for a PD. Both PD's that she had were fairly experienced, but any PD's caseload is pretty heavy.

Her attorney also filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the judge. It also looks like the ADA fought pretty hard to keep this charge alive.

Wisconsin Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) provides as follows:
Any person who has attained the age of 17 and who, with knowledge of the character and content of the description or narrative account, verbally communicates, by any means, a harmful description or narrative account to a child, with or without monetary consideration, is guilty of a Class I felony if any of the following applies:
1. The person knows or reasonably should know that the child has not attained the age of 18 years.
2. The person has face-to-face contact with the child before or during the communication.
For purposes of the statute, "[h]armful description or narrative account" means "any explicit and detailed description or narrative account of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children." Section 948.11(1)(ag).

In other words, witchcraft.

 

[Elphaba]

I have a feeling that had it been a father giving detail to the sons, it probably would have been dismissed as a dad telling the sons about the birds & bees. Mom telling sons about sex, probably kind of gives it the "ewww" factor, to some people.

I don't think this lady deserves a felony charge... but then again, I am not privy to what actually was said and done.

May I add: her sons probably see and hear things on primetime tv that are far more graphic in nature than what their mom was telling them. But.. then again, I don't know the whole context of the convo she had with them...

Sometimes, it's hard to be a parent...

 

[southcitymom]

I have a feeling that had it been a father giving detail to the sons, it probably would have been dismissed as a dad telling the sons about the birds & bees. Mom telling sons about sex, probably kind of gives it the "ewww" factor, to some people.

I don't think this lady deserves a felony charge... but then again, I am not privy to what actually was said and done.

May I add: her sons probably see and hear things on primetime tv that are far more graphic in nature than what their mom was telling them. But.. then again, I don't know the whole context of the convo she had with them...

Sometimes, it's hard to be a parent...

Good point, Elphaba.