Massachusetts wants to imprison people for 10 years if they take a nude photo of their over-60 spouse, even with spouse's consent


65 Responses to “Massachusetts wants to imprison people for 10 years if they take a nude photo of their over-60 spouse, even with spouse's consent”

  1. Anonymous says:

    It makes perfect sense to me that the legal age of consent should be between 18 and 60.

    But what about the rest of us that plan on becoming senile before we are 60?

  2. Takuan says:

    the lube

  3. TroofSeeker says:

    Hw mch f mrkt cn thr b fr phts f nd, k-k ld ppl?

    LD TD: “Jmmy, gt ld f ths n! thnk sh’s stll gt bth hr hps!”

    LD JMMY: “Yh, bt lk t ths n. Nps r stll bv th wst!”

    LD TD: “Mn, tht’s n ht chck! nd lk, n tth!”

    LD JMMY: “Bns! Mn, ‘d lk t drv hr vr th brdg!”

    LD TD: “Y hd t brng tht p?!”

    ftr dcds f dprvty, lt ‘m.
    sspct th Mss. Lgsltr s jst f**kng wth Td Knndy nywy.

  4. Teller says:

    1. How is anyone supposed to know what photographs you take in private?

    2. If it’s about exploiting the mentally incompetent or unsuspecting grannies in order to publish porn, then it oughta say so.

    3. I’m missing something.

  5. Halloween Jack says:

    Great. I’ve only got fifteen years left for my potential nude modeling career.

  6. Roy Blake says:

    I’m over sixty and would be delighted to pose for lascivious photos. Too bad nobody’s offering! Seriously, this is the silliest bit of lawmaking I’ve seen in the last — oh —hour or so.

  7. HeruRaHa says:

    59… the new “barely legal”

  8. andreinla says:

    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.

  9. Anonymous says:

    what’s worse to me is that this bill somehow equates people over 60 with people who have disabilities. lumping those two disparate qualifiers together makes it seem like the state of massachusetts believes that being over 60 is a disability in and of itself.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The intent to protect those who are mentally incompetent from abuse is good, but this law appears poorly written. Back to the drawing board.

  11. nehpetsE says:

    Does this mean they’ll be burning all of Harriet Casdin-Silver’s work?

    (she’s dead so i guess they can’t arrest her in person)

  12. Xopher says:

    Kathi-Anne Reinstein should move in with Michelle Bachman, in the Federal Home for the Completely Stupid.

  13. eddieduggan says:

    This sound like a job for …

    S P E N C E R T U N I C K !

  14. TulsaTV says:

    Hey, Massachusetts! We here in Oklahoma resent you trying to steal our thunder with your ridiculous bill. We’ll go you one better and lower the age to 40.

  15. Brainspore says:

    @ Teller #15:

    1. It turns out that not all lascivious nude photos remain private. (I hear there are even some on the internet now!)

    2. Maybe so, but laws aren’t enforced based on “intent.”

    3. If by “missing something” you mean “missing out on hot GILF-on-GILF action,” then yes you are!

  16. Brainspore says:

    @ #50 posted by dculberson:

    Brainspore, laws are most certainly enforced based on intent. That’s why there’s a difference between manslaughter and murder, or murder and aggravated murder.

    I should have clarified my point. What I meant was that the intent of the legislators isn’t what determines how laws are enforced, or against whom.

    For example, the laws against publishing pictures of naked kids were intended to stop child pornographers, but badly written legislation has been used to ruin the lives of minors who take pictures of themselves.

  17. nehpetsE says:

    And i can vouch that at least one of Joel-peter-Witkin’s model’s was from boston.
    Has he been notified?
    (I no longer have his contact info)

  18. retrojoe says:

    Banned in Boston.

    This is the first step towards Carousel!

  19. Nora says:

    How else are we going to combat the epidemic of sexting among the elderly>

  20. cynicaldrunk says:

    These dumkopfs are clearly encroaching Rule 34. This WILL not stand.

  21. Anonymous says:

    No, Mark. Let’s hope it dies a FAST, agonizing death!

    As a resident of the Commonwealth, I can only groan and roll my eyes once again, as our backwater Nanny State politicians once again restrict our liberties “for our own good”.

    This is the home of Harvard, MIT and a dozen other top-quality centers of knowledge and philosophy, but this is the best we can elect to public office? Ack.

  22. generousmedium says:

    This is idiotic. One of the cosponsors is my state legislator, so I’m first going to friend him on facebook and then tell all of our friends about this!

  23. Rager says:

    Looks like there’s waaay too many reps in Mass.

  24. TroofSeeker says:

    I see several possible points, Anti:

    1. Massachusetts is protecting the dignity of elderly, mentally diminished people.
    2. The Massachusetts legislature is caught up in another fascist conservative effort to control the lives and liberties of people whom they disapprove of.
    3. Massachusetts is attempting to cope with an abundance of perverts.
    Mark called it idiotic, so I’ll go with #2.
    Can I have my vowels back, if I promise no more cracks about TK, or long, saggy…anything?

  25. Kobie says:

    Has anybody got this clowns address?

    I’m suddenly compelled to send him pictures of me genitals.

  26. CT Moore says:

    Let’s hope it dies a QUICK agonizing death…

  27. JoshuaZ says:

    Joking aside, this does raise some serious issues. It isn’t clear to me what we should do when one member of a couple that was previously ok is no longer able to consent due to inability to communicate or a reduction in mental facilities. It is nice to base things off of consent, but this becomes a real problem when considering eldery couples.

  28. nehpetsE says:

    More info on the cultured sophisticate pushing this bill.

    in 2006, Kathi-Anne Reinstein , the Revere state representative, also filed legislation
    to make the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich.

  29. bolamig says:

    Okay, from now on, lets just drop the pretense and start explicitly using government as a whip to bully people with. If you don’t take your happy pills, I’ll make it illegal for you to have fun.

  30. Anonymous says:

    #56, those are mutually exclusive?

  31. dculberson says:

    Brainspore, laws are most certainly enforced based on intent. That’s why there’s a difference between manslaughter and murder, or murder and aggravated murder.

  32. macemoneta says:

    When can we get a law that locks up legislators for proposing unconstitutional laws? As a legislator, job one is knowing the constitutions of of your country and state. Failing at that should be gross criminal neglect.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Somethings wrong with this country. The people running it are either absolute idiots or corrupt greedy bastards.

  34. ill lich says:

    “Over the age of 60″?

    Maybe they’re really just trying to protect the rest of us from being grossed out (unless you’re talking nude photos of Cher. . . . rrrrwwowwrrrr!)

  35. Anonymous says:

    To a hundred year old ,60 is young.
    I agree anyone exploited should be able to sue
    in court but as i read this law it’s a bit screwy.

  36. Anonymous says:

    I thought that child porn laws focused on a child in a sexually suggestive pose or with genitals gratuitously displayed, but they changed it to plain old nude…

    Guess you can’t take a picture of your kid in their birthday suit anymore? No naked babies?

  37. Kaden says:

    Some ‘elder’ Massachusetts politician is clearly concerned about racy personal daguerreotypes surfacing in the near future. Is there a short list of over-60 Mass. pols in the throes of divorce?

  38. vettekaas says:


    ’59… the new “barely legal” ‘


    I’m also vaguely worried about the whole “disability” thing. Are they talking physical or mental disability? If I lose a limb or two, I would like to imagine that I still have the right to have lascivious photos posted of me. Physically disabled can be sexual, too!

  39. Anonymous says:

    I really hope someone sues the author of this bill for age discrimination.

  40. vamidus says:

    I totally agree! Unfortunately every time someone gets hurt an enterprising politician will pop up and make a stand “to protect” … but all that does is make life more difficult (and sometimes criminal) for everybody.

  41. Machineintheghost says:

    If anybody’s curious, here’s an example of a Massachusetts case dealing with how to prove “lascivious intent.”

  42. Anonymous says:

    How about a quick, agonizing, death instead?

  43. ellinoz says:

    All good and well to joke but there are folks doing serious work who will be effected by the bill if it gets up –

    Call Ms Kathi-Anne Reinstein’s office – Telephone: (redacted) (from her website)

  44. Anonymous says:

    Someone really didn’t like lemonparty!

  45. Anonymous says:

    When I get old, I’ll move to Boston and entertain myself by sexting people and getting them arrested.

  46. jfrancis says:

    Is it

    (a person over the age of 60) or (a person with a disability who has been declared mentally incompetent) ?

    Or is it

    (a person over the age of 60 or a person with a disability) who has been declared mentally incompetent) ?

    Makes a big difference.

  47. Brainspore says:

    Lock ‘em up with all those minors who got charged as sex predators for taking nude pictures of themselves.

  48. Anonymous says:

    Clearly the law was drafted in response to a concern that institutionalized people could be victimised — lemme guess, there was an actual case of an unscrupulous orderly taking pics of alzheimer’s patients and posting them on the internet? American lawmaking is SOOO predictable.

    Having said that, they typically overreached. Why not a law that addressed the issue of consent instead?

  49. philipb says:

    well there goes I guess

  50. Teller says:

    1. I KNEW stuff like that was going on.
    2. Isn’t “intent” what ‘conspiracy to blah blah’ means?
    3. Busted.

  51. sarenmithsarn says:

    I’m a 40 year old female disabled wheelchair user. What I do in my bedroom (or kitchen, living room couch, or hanging from my rafters) is no one’s damned business. If my able bodied boyfriend & I decide to take sexy pictures of me, that’s between us. And of course they would be lascivious, that’s the damned point. hubba hubba. I don’t need someone out there making decisions ‘for my own good.’ This pending legislation has to be about personal specific consent and privacy. I’ve experienced over the years the intrusions of people, who have no idea what they are talking about, trying to protect ‘vulnerable populations.’ The condescending and ignorant belief that the disabled and elderly are completely lacking in sexual desire and drive is absurd. I fear the young looking legislator instigating this legislation has little or no contact with the people she is trying to make a stand for. I imagine she is the same sort of person who would pat me on the head, speaking loud and slow. I don’t need that kind of help, thank you very much. If she and others want to protect those vulnerable populations, those who truly cannot speak up for themselves, I recommend Kathi-Anne Reinstein learn who they are and how better to define them.

  52. dculberson says:

    Lumping people over 60 in with people that have been declared mentally incompetent is pretty insulting, I think. Why does Kathi-Anne hate America?

  53. Daemon says:

    Next up, in order to prevent people from taking advantage of old folks by getting them to sign horribly abusive contracts, they’ll make it illegal to enter into a contract with anyone over the age of 60.

  54. C0nt1nu1ty says:

    Now i have a new thing to worry about when i get old, when i retire will the government stop me doing sexy things with my wife?

  55. Purly says:

    Let’s just make seniors have all the same lack of rights as children! Awesome.

  56. peterbruells says:

    @jfrances Technically, the 2nd interpretation could be possible. But damn, if they want to express something like this, they better use appropriate wording, “A person, who a) is either over the age of 60 or has a disabaility and b) has been declared mentally incompetent.

    Personally, I don’t think that this makes remotely any sense. Why treat someone, who has been declared mentally incompetent, different because of his age? And isn’t being mentally incompetent already a disablity?

  57. Chevan says:

    #2 – It’s the first one.

  58. Miss Cellania says:

    It sure sound like whoever wrote this assumes that people 60 years old generally don’t know what they’re doing. I would guess that quite a few Massachusetts legislators are over 60 and don’t consider themselves a “vulnerable population”.

  59. the name says:

    Darn, guess Jon Swift’s idea won’t be implemented.

  60. nutbastard says:

    your tax dollars at work. next week – they outlaw punching yourself in the face, as well as a bunch of other things that no one wants to do anyways.

  61. Anonymous says:


    I’d say it’s more of an or than an either/or. Below Average Intelligence and Above Average Avarice is a pretty common case for pols.

  62. Anonymous says:

    You might want to check out the posts on the blog WHAT WE SAW TODAY regarding this issue. I am a fine arts nude model over the age of 60. I am mentally competent and more physically fit than most women in their 30s and 40s. Take a look.

    Unbearable Lightness

  63. dragonfrog says:

    @4 and 9 – It definitely is the first.

    The text of the bill is here. The law it’s amending is here.

    The first edit in the bill changes the title of the law from:

    Chapter 272: Section 29A. Posing or exhibiting child in state of nudity or sexual conduct; punishment


    Chapter 272: Section 29A. Posing or exhibiting child,an elder or a person with a disability in state of nudity or sexual conduct; punishment

    The second edit in the bill changes the first words of the law from:

    Section 29A. (a) Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know [talks the kid into getting naked for naughty reasons, is going to the big house]


    Section 29A. (a) Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability or while in possession of such facts [yadda yadda...]

  64. PaulR says:

    Um, how can you prove ‘lascivious intent’?

  65. Antinous / Moderator says:


    The point of this post seems to have whooshed right over your head.

Leave a Reply