This is unbelievable: A 15-year-old Ohio girl currently faces juvenile child pornography charges for allegedly taking and distributing nude photos of herself.

After Licking Valley High School officials discovered the photos on the girl’s phone and tipped off police last Friday, she was arrested, held in jail over the weekend and charged with possession of criminal tools and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, ABC reports. If convicted, she could spend several years in juvenile detention and be forced to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years of her life (although, since she is a first-time offender and a minor, the judge could decide against making her register).

What’s more, charges might still be filed against the students who received the photos, regardless of whether they received them unwillingly. State law holds that “anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony,” according to the Newark Advocate. If convicted, they could face registration as a sex offender for 10 years.

Clearly, the states’ child porn laws were not written to address these types of situations — and they do not take into consideration the technology at kids’ disposal. There are now infinite ways for teenagers to virtually play-act their sexuality. Are minors guilty of sexually abusing themselves for engaging in this kind of exploration in all of the many (admittedly frightening) ways available to them? How can we consider minors both incapable of giving legally meaningful sexual consent and criminal should they make a sexual decision for themselves without an adult’s involvement?

That’s not to say that some punishment — whether it’s meted out by their parents, the school or the law — isn’t reasonable in this case. After all, the general reaction to a teenage boy sending out explicit photos of himself to female classmates would likely, and rightly, be that it was sexual harassment — why should it be any different if a girl is the sender? Also, distributing nude photos of yourself is potentially self-endangering behavior that should be addressed — obviously.

But calling this girl a sex offender for distributing pornographic images of herself is crazy-talk. We have to acknowledge that, however unprepared she was to make the decision, she does have ownership over her own body; her sexual choice is not the same as an adult making a sexual choice for her.

So you’re 16 years old, with a little time and baby-sitting money to burn. And so you head with your bestie to Forever 21 — or, I dunno, Dolce & Gabbana, because you live in Los Angeles — to try on the hot new fall collection. Your bestie slips into a shimmery rose top you do not like. “It’s totally gay,” you say to her. (You always talk like this.) She laughs, knowingly, but then who should walk by at just that moment? Hillary Freaking Duff.

“Oh, I don’t mean gay as in gay. I mean gay as in stupid.”

Wait a minute, who put this pop tart in your dressing room?

Maybe you are surprised and a little bit excited. Maybe you are confused and speechless. I really don’t know. The closest I’ve come to meeting Hillary Duff is interviewing RJ Helton from the first season of “American Idol.” Anyway, Duff says to you:

“You really shouldn’t say that … It’s insulting.”

Whoa, Duff is dropping some knowledge! And she’s right. “It’s totally gay” is a bankrupt phrase. I’ve been guilty of using it, much like (more frequently) I’ve been guilty of saying, “It’s so retarded.” But recently, Broadsheet’s own Lynn Harris wrote  a terrific piece for Salon about the latter phrase that has really made me rethink my flippant use of the term.

Actually, this PSA reminds me of a Sarah Silverman joke from early in her VH1 sitcom, in which she says something to the effect of, “That’s so gay!” Then, realizing her homosexual friends are listening, she adds, “Oh, I don’t mean gay as in gay. I mean gay as in stupid.”

 But as Nancy Updike pointed out in a 2000 Salon story about the resurgence of the phrase, there is something gratifying about saying it:

“Everyone loves it,” says Cris Beam, a 28-year-old writer in Los Angeles. “I remember saying it at the Gay Pride Parade this year and it was hilarious — everyone was so thrilled to have it come back, because we’d all forgotten about it. We wanted to say it again and again and again.”

Duff’s take was a bit more bracing and schoolmarmish: “When you say that’s so gay, do you realize what you’re saying?”

Hey, kids, the more you know [cue rainbow graphic]…

Watch the PSA here:

(via)

Women of a certain generation (mine) will tell you that there has never been a magazine for teen girls that combined decent sex advice, politics and cheap DIY thrift store fashions quite like Sassy, and that there has never been an author who gets teen girls and sexual confusion quite like Judy Blume. But then again, this is the same generation of women, more or less, who are now sitting high up on the masthead of magazines for teen girls and writing young adult novels. So it’s kind of cool to see some of them slipping some politics in with the lipgloss.

»Continued

Working the women’s beat day after day, one becomes habituated to unbelievable Onion-esque news — of the dreadful, ridiculous or simply idiotic variety. So when I say that a Dutch town’s proposal for ridding its streets of prostitution blew my mind, it’s really saying something. It’s the topic of my clip for Current TV:

Lately, I’ve been gripped by blog-buzz about sex writers being laid (har) off. Two weeks ago, the Village Voice let go Tristan Taormino, the porn director, editor and author of the 9-year-old column Pucker Up. Just last week, Gawker laid off 19 people, including Fleshbot editor Jonno and Melissa Gira Grant, author of Valleywag’s Sex Trade column. Also axed: Audacia Ray’s columns History of Sex for Eden Fantasys and Fashion Police for Fleshbot, as well as her Village Voice Naked City blog. Playboy Radio also cut from its daily news segment Regina Lynn, formerly of Wired’s Sex Drive column (which she chose to leave).

There are others, but the point is: These are scary times for sex writers. And, today, Violet Blue, sex columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, asks: If sex sells, why are sex writers getting the shaft? (Again, har.) She doesn’t directly answer the question, so I brought the question to sex writers themselves.

Susannah Breslin, a reporter who runs the blog Reverse Cowgirl, argues that sex writers have, for the most part, been held to a lower journalistic standard. “Sometimes people become sex writers because they screw a lot, not necessarily because they can write well,” she told me in an e-mail. “If your career as a writer is driven by you showing your tits on your blog on a regular basis, maybe you shouldn’t be so surprised when you lose your cred.”

Rachel Kramel Bussel, whose column Lusty Lady was cut from the Village Voice in 2007, blamed the disappearance of sex columns on the integration of sex reporting. She has noticed sex journalism popping up in mainstream media outlets — not as regular columns, but as reported features — and suggests that readers might prefer to “see sex written about as part and parcel of our culture, rather than as a separate, stand-alone topic.”

On a similar note, Broadsheet’s Sarah Hepola, formerly an editor for the smart sex mag Nerve, said the traditional shock-and-awe approach to sex columns doesn’t work. She finds “the frustrations of a real person grappling with sex — the lack of it, the absurdity of it, the frustrations of it” more compelling than reading about, say, being tied up in a dominatrix’s dungeon and being flogged with a cat o’ nine tails. I would argue that the range of subversive sexual behavior that is out there no longer shocks — and, unless the author intelligently mines the behavior, it’s all kind of ho-hum, wonder what’s for dinner.

»Continued

Remember what it was like to have a female candidate whom people actually took seriously? Love her or hate her (or feel lukewarm about her, as I do), most Americans treated Hillary Clinton like a politician to be reckoned with. While misogyny undeniably affected her campaign, it never overtook it. Perhaps because Sarah Palin doesn’t have much to offer politically or intellectually, it seems that when the dust settles on the 2008 election, the governor’s greatest, lasting impact on our culture may be her endlessly touted sex appeal. And that, “my friends,” makes this a sad moment indeed for feminism.

So am I particularly shocked, or scandalized, that a company called Topco has created a Sarah Palin sex doll? Nope. In what appears to be a saucy acknowledgment of a potential lawsuit, the product’s clumsy official name is, “This is NOT Sarah Palin Inflatable Love Doll.” Its packaging shows an impossibly buxom lady — who, incidentally, bears little to no resemblance to Palin — busting out of a cheap, disheveled business suit. The box’s marketing copy is about as cheesy and uninspired as it could possibly be, with lines like, “Let her pound your gavel over and over” and “Cross party lines with your own inflatable running mate!” I’m still scratching my head over the quip, “Blow her up and show her how you’re going to vote.” For her? Against her? With your penis? I give up.

Speaking of Palin’s sex life — because who can think about anything else lately? — Buzzfeed is speculating on the candidate’s bare ring finger. Apparently, she has been spotted sans wedding band several times over the past few weeks. The way I see it, there are two ways to think about this. The first, obviously, is that Palin’s planning on ditching her husband, “First Dude” Todd. The other possibility is that, like strippers and pop stars everywhere, the governor has removed her ring because a seemingly available VPILF is more conducive to fantasy than one whose jewelry keeps reminding you she’s taken.

Perhaps no one knows about this better than Paris Hilton, who took the opportunity, in an interview for November’s issue of Harper’s Bazaar, to give Palin a few fashion tips. “My advice to Sarah Palin is, you’ve got a hot bod; don’t keep it to yourself,” Hilton told the magazine. “Why wear a pantsuit when you can wear a swimsuit? Welcome to the Lower 48, girlfriend.” Clearly Hilton hasn’t had the pleasure of watching the ever-popular clip of the Alaska governor in the midst of a swimsuit competition.

And finally, did we really think we’d get to Nov. 4 without hearing Madonna sound off on Sarah Palin? America’s favorite opinionated pop star — a lady who knows a thing or two about mature sex appeal — had some choice words for the V.P. candidate at a concert Saturday night: “Sarah Palin can’t come to my party! Sarah Palin can’t come to my show!” To me, that just about says it all, but here’s the Los Angeles Times blog to put a creepy spin on it: “I don’t think I’m alone in saying I would pay dearly to watch Sarah and Madonna mud-wrestle. Who do you think would win? Sarah’s got some seriously toned calves from all her running. But check out Madge’s scary thighs.” Way to raise the level of discourse, guys.

This past July, a woman calling herself La Roxy was inspired by the book Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide to start a project in which she explicitly asks for something every day for a year. According to the book’s authors, women’s reluctance to ask for stuff can result in massive financial losses over the course of a career, slower advancement, and way more grunt work in the home, among other unpleasant things. La Roxy was so struck by their message that by the time she got to page 7, she’d already decided to try her asking experiment. And of course the next natural step was to blog it, hence The Daily Asker.

»Continued

Remember the old Goofus and Gallant cartoons from Highlights magazine? I couldn’t help thinking of those when I read two different articles on Elle’s Women in Hollywood tribute earlier this week. Goofus (USA Today) writes about an event honoring women in the entertainment industry and titles it “Women in Hollywood Embrace Their New Role: Mom.” Gallant (the Associated Press) goes instead with the headline “A-List Women Celebrate Their Own in Hollywood.” And it pretty much continues like that.

Gallant correctly identifies the purpose of the evening — paying tribute to women’s achievements in the entertainment business — and includes quotes about just that from honorees Anne Hathaway (whom I adore unreasonably, and who kicked so much ass on “Saturday Night Live” last week that my boyfriend turned to me midway through and went, “Wait, you weren’t kidding when you said she was actually smart and funny”), Isla Fisher and Sigourney Weaver. Better still, here’s Weaver’s quote: “Someday hopefully it won’t be necessary to allocate a special evening to celebrate where we are and how far we’ve come. Someday women writers, producers and crew members will be so commonplace, and roles and salaries for actresses will outstrip those for men, and pigs will fly.” Heh.

Meanwhile, Goofus talks to Nicole Kidman (another honoree) only about her freakin’ new baby; discusses what Halle Berry, Kate Beckinsale, Jennifer Lopez and Leah Remini (all nonhonorees) think about motherhood; and then gets around to talking about the actual point of the evening, which was, you know, women’s careers outside the home. My favorite quote from Kidman: “So many women … have their toe at least in the workforce and they still want to have families. That’s me too.” Yes indeed, folks, the woman who two years ago was the highest-paid actress in Hollywood has a toe in the workforce but struggles to balance that with child rearing. Stars! They’re just like us!

Let the record show that I have absolutely nothing against motherhood, mothers, children, Nicole Kidman or people who prioritize family above their careers. But come on. It’s an event to celebrate women’s success in business, and a major newspaper covers it as if it’s a friggin’ star-studded Mommy and Me yoga class? If that’s still acceptable in 2008, then Weaver’s probably right about the whole pigs flying thing. Sob.

Get this: Apparently advertisers sometimes target women with intentionally misleading advertisements — and, brace yourselves, pharmaceutical companies are among the major offenders. (And I thought Big Pharma was a good pal.) Bayer is the latest wrongdoer, according to the Food and Drug Administration, which on Tuesday released a warning letter sent to the company about “misbranding” in two TV spots for the birth control pill Yaz.

You’ve probably seen the ads. The first, which stopped running in 2007, starts by telling us: “We all know that birth control pills are 99 percent effective and can give you shorter, lighter periods. But did you know there’s a Pill that could do more? ” Then it shows women giving an upper cut and karate kick to words like “irritability” and “moodiness”— all to a pop remix of Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It.” The suggestion, of course, is that Yaz combats common symptoms of premenstrual syndrome. The pill, however, is approved for treating premenstrual dysphoric disorder, a debilitating medical condition. Presumably, Bayer was hoping no one would pick up on the very significant difference between PMS and PMDD — but, what do you know, the FDA did! “The TV ads misleadingly suggest that Yaz is approved to treat women with any severity of the symptoms presented, regardless of whether their symptoms are actually severe enough to constitute PMDD,” the FDA wrote in its letter.

The second spot, which Bayer has agreed to pull, features tons of colorful balloons — bearing words like “bloating,” “irritability,” “fatigue,” “moodiness,” “increased appetite” and “acne” — being released above the heads of smiling young ladies strutting around a nondescript metropolis. One woman rocks out in her car — post-breakup style — to the ads’ theme song, “Goodbye to You.” The message: Dump that loser for Yaz — it will love you like PMS never did. Again, the FDA clarified, “such an elimination of symptoms has not been demonstrated by substantial evidence.” Pshh, evidence.

The ads also “suggest that Yaz is approved for acne of all severities when this is not the case,” and the FDA says the drug’s risks are not appropriately addressed. “These complex presentations distract from and make it difficult for viewers to process and comprehend the important risks being conveyed,” the letter reads. “This is particularly troubling as some of the risks being conveyed are serious, even life-threatening.” In other words, the peppy spots cheer “Empower yourself!” rather than screaming “Warning: Deadly blood clot risk!”

It’s nice to see the FDA finally catch on to the trend of advertising birth control pills as a lifestyle choice rather than, um, birth control. Now you go on the Pill because you want lighter, shorter periods or want to schedule menstruation around vacations and important meetings — or because it’s icky and you want to get rid of it altogether. You take it to clear your skin, regulate your appetite, eliminate cramps and reduce PMS. The uses actually approved for your chosen brand of birth control? Irrelevant.

I think Sarah Haskins said it best in her takedown of such ads: “Birth control is sold as period control. Why? I don’t know I am just a lady with a simple lady mind.”

Because we support female candidates for office just because they are women, no matter how stone-cold bat shit faux-folksy or parsel-tongued, whose politics and very presence embody the promise of equal opportunity, civil rights, diversity, and compassion, it’s tempting — if not encouraging — to look ahead to 2012 (assuming that we are not, by then, swimming with the polar bears). One blogger (handle: “betterdonkeys”) at MyDD has done just that, offering this speculative list of nine possible (remotely and otherwise) female candidates for president, four years hence. (This is not about replacing — kinehora, ptui ptui ptui — Obama, by the way. Just a pretty glimpse of what the field could look like.)

On MyDD’s roster’s top tier:

— Kathleen Sebelius, whose term as Kansas governor is up in 2010, at which time she could have a shot at Sam Brownback’s Senate seat — and at being Kansas’ first Democratic senator since the publication of “The Grapes of Wrath” (1939).

— Janet Napolitano, whose term as governor of Arizona ends in 2010. Did somebody say Arizona? You betcha. MyDD favors a “clash of the titans challenge to McCain for his Senate seat; if she could defeat him, her star would certainly rise to the top of 2016 contenders.”

— Hillary Rodham Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.

Also: Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, plus a handful of other fun-to-think-about long shots (including Darcy Burner).

Not that all of these women would necessarily run all at once. But! “Our bench is deep, and we will have a group of competent and accomplished female politicians as options,” the post continues, also noting: “We … should recognize that gender equality in politics is not the politics of tokenism, of appointing someone hopelessly overmatched for the position solely on the basis of gender. I have wondered if the Palin nomination would create something of an ‘arms race’ between the two parties to achieve true gender equality in politics. If this happens, then bring it.”