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

[philamena]

????? Give me a break - we don't even know what was said - and a felony?!!! Good Lord.

If you were a single Mom, where would you rather your kids learn about oral sex - from their friends or an R-rated movie or from you?
.........

YOU don't know what was said during the conversation either.
Maybe you don't have children or perhaps your children are young but there are proper ways to discuss sex education with children. A sex education discussion is one thing but the article states the mom

allegedly described performing oral sex and also showed the two a sex toy.

IMO that's going too far.

 

[philamena]

Seven while I respect your opinion I would say those who DONT talk to their kids before they are sexually active are the ones who need the parenting classes, not this mom. Yes maybe she went about it in the wrong way, MAYBE. At least she had the courage to tell them.

hey IndayGal!
Wake up people--I agree that talking to kids and educating them about sex is one good thing. Describing their own sexual performances to their kids is another matter entirely. Turn this instance around....instead of the mother talking to her sons, let's say you were the teen....
How would you have felt if your father described giving oral sex to a woman to you...would that have been ok?:silenced:

 

[philamena]

Sex education is one thing. It is to "educated" your child on sex and the consequences thereof.

But to describe several of your own sexual experiences as an adult, to discuss and go into detail of the mother giving oral sex, to show sex toys to children. That is way too far and is no where in the "bounds" of education.

Thanks for saying this so well. :clap::clap:

 

[Indy Gal]

hey IndayGal!
Wake up people.....Talking to kids and educating them about sex is one thing. Describing their own sexual preformances to their kids is another matter entirely. Turn this instance around....instead of the mother talking to her sons, let's say you were the teen....
h:dohw would you have felt if your father described giving oral sex to a woman to you...would that have been ok?

Hey you!!

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1787700&postcount=20

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1787508&postcount=15


My father was way to embarrased to discuss these types of things, BUT if you are a single dad you have to do it.

On this case I think the boys may have been mad at mom and streched what was really said and done, at least IMO

 

[southcitymom]

YOU don't know what was said during the conversation either.
Maybe you don't have children or perhaps your children are young but there are proper ways to discuss sex education with children. A sex education discussion is one thing but the article states the mom
IMO that's going too far.

The Mom states that's not what happened and as you state, none of us knows what happened. But to charge her with a felony - please?! That's insane, IMHO.

 

[southcitymom]

Hey you!!

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1787700&postcount=20


My father was way to embarrased to discuss these types of things, BUT if you are a single dad you have to do it.

Exactly. And what else is a parent going to go on other than their own experience? I mean - hello?

Maybe the Mom in this situation should have been more "delicate" or maybe the boys in this situation are angry at their Mom. In any event, I haven't read anything compelling as to why this woman was charged with a felony.

 

[southcitymom]

Of course the Mom "thought" she did nothing wrong, most people do. Or else they would not do it. Of course the mother thought it was appropriate to discuss her sex life with her sons. She thought nothing of it.

What do you think, now she is going to "see" what she did wrong. Remember most people who are criminals "justify" their crime for what ever misguided reason they had in the first place.

In my opinion this could come under the category of "covert" incest.

Only if the mother in this case were talking to the children about sex in an effort to make the children fulfill her needs and desires. Covert incest is less about sex and more about a parent using a child inappropriately to fulfill their emotional needs.

There's nothing we know about this case that indicates this. This Mom took these kids to counseling because she had some concern about the sons's emotional needs, so what we know leads me away from the covert incest thought.

I'm not saying there isn't covert incest going on here. I'm just saying a parent talking to a child about sex isn't covert incest. If the parent talks to the child way way inapporpriately and in a titillating fashion about sex, there's nothing covert about that - that's just plain incest.

 

[Texana]

Sex education is one thing. It is to "educated" your child on sex and the consequences thereof.

But to describe several of your own sexual experiences as an adult, to discuss and go into detail of the mother giving oral sex, to show sex toys to children. That is way too far and is no where in the "bounds" of education.

This is my thought, exactly.

As a single parent, you are of course the one on the line to explain everything necessary to your child, from sex ed to balancing a checkbook. But with single parents, there is also the temptation to treat the child(ren) as adult partners--a kind of emotional incest. It is understandable, but not acceptable.

Again, the thing is, the child--at least one of them--felt uncomfortable. While again also, I don't think the mother deserved a felony, I think we must give more precedence to the child's feelings than the mother's intentions, whatever they were. Because frankly, her approach didn't work for the child.

She needs parenting classes more than anything else, so she can turn those intentions into positive results. And if the intentions are getting waylaid by her own needs--then she needs to know that as well.

 

[Seven]

Sex education is one thing. It is to "educated" your child on sex and the consequences thereof.

But to describe several of your own sexual experiences as an adult, to discuss and go into detail of the mother giving oral sex, to show sex toys to children. That is way too far and is no where in the "bounds" of education.

It's hard to even imagine ..... Most kids don’t even like to think of their parents “doing the nasty.” They’re usually all “My mom and dad did THAT!?” ….. So that’s gonna make kids uncomfortable right there, and then for the parent to be describing herself (giving/ receiving) oral sex? Did she demonstrate on a “reasonable facimile”??? I’d imagine that would make any son uncomfortable, even if he were an adult, but to do it to a 12-year-old? I mean, how do you get that picture out of your head if you’re the kid? ….. Best thing you could say about such a demonstration would be, “bad judgment.”

 

[txsvicki]

Punchline: "Exposing a child to harmful descriptions", is a felony in Wisconsin !
.
.
.
Alleged explicit sex discussion gets mom probation.


A Pardeeville mother accepted a plea agreement on charges she had a sexually explicit discussion with her two sons, even while she maintained she did nothing wrong and that she didn't understand why she was charged.

Amy J. Smalley, 36, said in court Thursday that she accepted the plea agreement in part because she thought it would be in the best interest of her sons, ages 12 and 16, in that it would spare them from testifying in court.

"I think this is what I'm going to have to do to make everyone happy," she said.

According to the charges filed against her, Smalley last year told her sons about several sexual experiences she had. She also allegedly described performing oral sex and also showed the two a sex toy.

"That is what I'm being charged with, but that is not what I did," Smalley said. "I believe I'm not guilty."

Smalley's attorneys unsuccessfully argued in court in July that the charges should be dismissed as the discussions should be protected as free speech between a parent and her children in the vein of sexual education.

(more)

http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news/255942

Good for Wisconsin! No mother should be showing a kid a sex toy and describing how she had oral sex and other experiences. Most kids would be totally disgusted to hear about a parent's sexual escapades.

 

[Wudge]

Good for Wisconsin! No mother should be showing a kid a sex toy and describing how she had oral sex and other experiences. Most kids would be totally disgusted to hear about a parent's sexual escapades.

Who decides what constitutes a felony and on what basis?

 

[Ang50]

Who decides what constitutes a felony and on what basis?

The state legislature and then the D.A. who decides what to charge and whether or not to charge.

Regardless of the facts - which in this case could go either way and we don't have enough info - it seems like this woman got railroaded slightly b/c she didn't fight the conviction. I don't think this charge would have held up if it was challenged by a good attorney.

It does appear, though, that the DA and judge mitigated the charge by doing probation. However, being a convicted felon may limit her future.

 

[MeoW333]

This is such a bizarre case.. I remember in health class the teacher had a banana and a condom; so i guess whatever she had to demonstrate oral sex was similiar? Why would she have to demonstrate that to male sons though unless they were gay and at those ages they would not even be secure in any sexuality. If her intentions were to educate them about oral sex, to avoid them having sex sex and not getting anyone pregnant, i don't just see why she didn't explain it verbally and leave it at that. If the boys were going to a therapist to keep from getting in trouble, then maybe they embellished the story if they were mad at their mother for making them go to therapy. I would imagine having to talk to a total stranger about their problem can be uncomfortable for anyone without having built trust first.

 

[southcitymom]

The state legislature and then the D.A. who decides what to charge and whether or not to charge.

Regardless of the facts - which in this case could go either way and we don't have enough info - it seems like this woman got railroaded slightly b/c she didn't fight the conviction. I don't think this charge would have held up if it was challenged by a good attorney.

It does appear, though, that the DA and judge mitigated the charge by doing probation. However, being a convicted felon may limit her future.

Terrific assessment. I wonder if she also has to register as an SO - another decent idea that has been diluted into near meaninglessness by this type of legal gymnastics.

 

[Ang50]

Terrific assessment. I wonder if she also has to register as an SO - another decent idea that has been diluted into near meaninglessness by this type of legal gymnastics.

I wondered that as well. It did not say one way or another. I have never seen this charge listed on the WI registry. Mostly the SO registry is sexual assault - there's a couple of viewing child porn or using a computer to corrupt a child but I've never seen the "harmful descriptions" charge.

I'm doubting that she has to register. The thing that bothers me about this case is that constitutionally, I don't think this charge stands up - both from a free speech point of view, and from a parental privilege point of view. I would highly doubt this charge has ever been used against a parent before in the state. If she had the $$ to fight this, she would have won.

I'm sympathetic towards her, I guess, b/c she got her kids in counseling and she also pled guilty b/c people (her lawyer and the DA) said it would be easier on her children. It leads me to think that she cares about her kids and had good intentions, however inept.

 

[southcitymom]

I wondered that as well. It did not say one way or another. I have never seen this charge listed on the WI registry. Mostly the SO registry is sexual assault - there's a couple of viewing child porn or using a computer to corrupt a child but I've never seen the "harmful descriptions" charge.

I'm doubting that she has to register. The thing that bothers me about this case is that constitutionally, I don't think this charge stands up - both from a free speech point of view, and from a parental privilege point of view. I would highly doubt this charge has ever been used against a parent before in the state. If she had the $$ to fight this, she would have won.

I'm sympathetic towards her, I guess, b/c she got her kids in counseling and she also pled guilty b/c people (her lawyer and the DA) said it would be easier on her children. It leads me to think that she cares about her kids and had good intentions, however inept.

You've summed up my feelings quite nicely - something I've been unable to do on this thread, so thank you. I do feel like this woman was railroaded to a certain extent and of course it's hard to put it all together without more information.

God willing, DH will handle all of that sex ed stuff with my son! I don't envy the Mom who finds herself in that position.

 

[sherri79]

to me this is the same as child porn. like alot of parents i have naked pictures of my children. we took pictures of both our kids during their first bath. we did not film the birth of our children but my sis in law did. she has a set of pictures that include her nude then her child nude and at some point there are pictures of the child partly inside the mother. we both had our pictures developed at walmart and nobody called police. my uncle is a police officer and has seen the pictures and did not cuff me. had i ever been arrested for these pictures i would demand a jury trial. no way a group of adults could look at these pictures and atleast 1 of them see that they are not child porn.

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?

i have talked to my 12 year old daughter about oral sex. when she came home from school and asked what a BJ was i answered her. i have told her that while it wont get you pregnant it can still give you a STD. i have told her that her friends may say it is not really sex but it is. i have told her that just like with regular sex emotions get involved and i dont think she is ready but for god's sake use a condom if she is going to do it. the idea of telling my child what i like to have done to me or what i do to their dad makes me feel ill. then to pull out my sex toys to show off to my kids.... this mother crossed a line.

 

[eve]

Terrific assessment. I wonder if she also has to register as an SO - another decent idea that has been diluted into near meaninglessness by this type of legal gymnastics.

You said it, South and I hope people w/ these knee-jerk reactions don't get caught in the same web someday when someone reacts to something they do.

My son asked me about oral sex when he was very young (during the Clinton administration - after hearing the news - need I say more). Are ya'll saying I don't have the right as a parent to provide my son knowledge as I see fit? "There outta be a law!" Jeez!

People are just throwing their common sense out the window.

Everything we may personally object to doesn't get addressed by passing new laws or expanding existing laws to new levels of absurdity.

Eve

 

[Wudge]

The state legislature and then the D.A. who decides what to charge and whether or not to charge.

Regardless of the facts - which in this case could go either way and we don't have enough info - it seems like this woman got railroaded slightly b/c she didn't fight the conviction. I don't think this charge would have held up if it was challenged by a good attorney.

It does appear, though, that the DA and judge mitigated the charge by doing probation. However, being a convicted felon may limit her future.

Right. The State legislature and the DA properly belong here. I forgot.

 

[Nova]

You said it, South and I hope people w/ these knee-jerk reactions don't get caught in the same web someday when someone reacts to something they do.

My son asked me about oral sex when he was very young (during the Clinton administration - after hearing the news - need I say more). Are ya'll saying I don't have the right as a parent to provide my son knowledge as I see fit? "There outta be a law!" Jeez!

People are just throwing their common sense out the window.

Everything we may personally object to doesn't get addressed by passing new laws or expanding existing laws to new levels of absurdity.

Eve

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!