Sex Mannequin Fucker Cleared
posted by November 13 at 10:42 AMon
If you have sex with a mannequin—or “simulate sex” with a mannequin—behind a closed door, all by yourself, all by your lonesome, and a guard walks in and finds you humping that mannequin but doesn’t actually see your genitals, only you “adjusting yourself,” are you guilty of “indecent exposure”? Should you be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life?
A magistrate in South Dakota thought so and found Michael James Plenty Horse guilty of indecent exposure. A circuit court upheld the conviction. But today the South Dakota State Supreme Court ruled that Plenty Horse, though plenty kinky (sorry), wasn’t guilty of indecent exposure, which “criminalizes sexual gratification by displaying or showing one’s genitals in public,” and overturned Plenty Horse’s conviction.
If the court hadn’t have tossed out his conviction, the “offender,” who was just 19 at the time of the “crime,” would have had to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life—which would have made it impossible for Plenty Horse to find a place to live or a job for the rest of his life.
The abuse of sex offender registries is an outrage. Originally created to alert people to the presence of dangerous sexual predators, sex offender registries increasingly sweep up people only “guilty” of being a little bit kinky, a little bit crazy, or a little bit of both—but not a danger to anyone. To be placed on a sex offender registry is to be suffer a social execution. And unless someone is a sexual predator and actually a danger to others—other human beings, thank you—placing him or her on a sex offender registry has to amount to an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.