Spring Break
Texting nude pics of yourself is dumb at any age
Bryan Murphy
Issue date: 2/19/09 Section: Commentary
Only infrequently does Wisconsin, "America's Dairyland," have anything entertaining to offer the rest of the nation. But like any rule, there are exceptions, the most recent being the case of Anthony Stancl, an 18-year-old former attendee of New Berlin High School, Wisc., whose exploits are fascinating if only for their sheer (depraved) ingenuity.
In early 2008, Stancl brought online "Kayla" and "Emily" - two Facebook accounts seemingly of teenage girls located near New Berlin. "Kayla" and "Emily" sweet-talked at least 31 boys of New Berlin High, aged 13 to 19, into sending "them" naked photos - and then, porn in hand, proceeded to blackmail at least seven of the boys, the youngest just 15, into showering their "male friend," Stancl, with sexual favors. Thus did Stancl catapult himself into infamy - and, almost certainly, prison. A rapist and a child pornographer, he faces up to 300 years imprisonment.
So finally, Wisconsin has produced something exceptional (though it had to be an adolescent sociopath, didn't it?). But the Stancl case begs a fundamental question, one with terrible implications for American society.
Q: "Who sends pictures of their dicks to 'Kayla' and 'Emily' on the Internet?"
A: "People without a goddamn clue."
The sexual assault of children is obviously reprehensible. But still, I'm pretty sure you don't have to be any older than 13 to see the flaws in giving nude photos of yourself out to people you don't know.
Perhaps sex ed. classes need to be updated for the digicam era. You obviously can't trust a "girl" online - which is why you would give "her" a code word to write down on a piece of paper, say, "Nebuchadnezzar," and demand "she" hold the paper over her purportedly bounteous bust before a web cam. It's incredibly easy to find amateur photos of undressed teenage girls online - ask "Kayla" - but significantly more difficult to find bare-skinned Lolitas draping themselves in posterboard sporting elements of the Old Testament. (If you receive a photo of a German middle manager covering up his bald spot with a line from "Ecclesiastes," that's your cue to sign off, lads.)
In early 2008, Stancl brought online "Kayla" and "Emily" - two Facebook accounts seemingly of teenage girls located near New Berlin. "Kayla" and "Emily" sweet-talked at least 31 boys of New Berlin High, aged 13 to 19, into sending "them" naked photos - and then, porn in hand, proceeded to blackmail at least seven of the boys, the youngest just 15, into showering their "male friend," Stancl, with sexual favors. Thus did Stancl catapult himself into infamy - and, almost certainly, prison. A rapist and a child pornographer, he faces up to 300 years imprisonment.
So finally, Wisconsin has produced something exceptional (though it had to be an adolescent sociopath, didn't it?). But the Stancl case begs a fundamental question, one with terrible implications for American society.
Q: "Who sends pictures of their dicks to 'Kayla' and 'Emily' on the Internet?"
A: "People without a goddamn clue."
The sexual assault of children is obviously reprehensible. But still, I'm pretty sure you don't have to be any older than 13 to see the flaws in giving nude photos of yourself out to people you don't know.
Perhaps sex ed. classes need to be updated for the digicam era. You obviously can't trust a "girl" online - which is why you would give "her" a code word to write down on a piece of paper, say, "Nebuchadnezzar," and demand "she" hold the paper over her purportedly bounteous bust before a web cam. It's incredibly easy to find amateur photos of undressed teenage girls online - ask "Kayla" - but significantly more difficult to find bare-skinned Lolitas draping themselves in posterboard sporting elements of the Old Testament. (If you receive a photo of a German middle manager covering up his bald spot with a line from "Ecclesiastes," that's your cue to sign off, lads.)
Be the first to comment on this story