Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Again, if you're comparing someone saying you're ten lbs overweight, to your (former) boyfriend blasting naked pics of you all over cyberspace, you're having a severe lack of perspective and should consult some women on how they feel about the subject.

I have, probably more often than most people here, and nudity or sexual suggestion isn't a big deal to a lot of them. Seriously, some of the pictures my friends have placed, of their own accord, on Facebook would make Maxim etc. look very, very tame. They knew what they were doing, and meant to do it. In fact a lot of them are more upset about "fat pics" than ones that feature them down to underwear.

Texas proves once again without a shadow of doubt, that it is in fact Texas.

Chongara wrote:Texas proves once again without a shadow of doubt, that it is in fact Texas.

Funny, because Pennsylvania had convicted a teenager not too long ago for this very same crime and used the same criteria.

As it stands, most of the time in these cases--even if it's between minors--there's nothing to really charge people with other than possession/distribution of child pornography.
The law hasn't caught up with the technology, pure and simple.

Ok time to display my ignorance of the modern world

I take it that those phone sex lines have now been made more convenient for the man on the go (pun intended) and reduced to text sex lines

wt are you duin nw?
Tkn f my bra. you lik

the mind doth boggle.

Stupid filter won't let me do textsprach!

dogma wrote:Yes, possessing child porn for any reason is a crime. Several underage boys have been charged with possession of child porn because they have received pictures, via text, of nude, underage girls.

I realize that it's a crime, but again the technology is an issue. If my buddy decides to blast everyone on his contacts list a picture of a girl at school the picture is coming and is going to get downloaded onto my phone whether I want it or not. Now after I open it I can see what it is and delete it but the record still exists that it was sent to me. If some prosecutor decides to make an example of my buddy and his circle of evil girl picture taking friends I'm potentially being thrown under the bus right along with everyone else and I did the right thing and deleted the damn thing the moment I realized what it is. Do the right thing and potentially be branded a sex offender for life. I probably need to look at the laws in depth but its concerning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Ok time to display my ignorance of the modern world

I take it that those phone sex lines have now been made more convenient for the man on the go (pun intended) and reduced to text sex lines

wt are you duin nw?
Tkn f my bra. you lik

the mind doth boggle.

No, different issue. This is more along the lines of people sending sexually explicit pictures via text message. In this case teenagers doing it.

Thanks for the explaination Tyyr
I get so behind the times with these things.

Only just discovered that dogging does NOT involve humping the border collie on a walk in the park.

case comes up next week

I think this is a good idea.

Child porn should be outlawed and prosecuted, obviously. But, it doesn't make sense to punish a child who takes nude pictures of themselves to that same level.

Toning down the crime to a misdemeanor seems reasonable. Legalizing it entirely isn't a good idea, IMO, as you don't want to condone the activity.

Tyyr wrote:
I realize that it's a crime, but again the technology is an issue. If my buddy decides to blast everyone on his contacts list a picture of a girl at school the picture is coming and is going to get downloaded onto my phone whether I want it or not. Now after I open it I can see what it is and delete it but the record still exists that it was sent to me. If some prosecutor decides to make an example of my buddy and his circle of evil girl picture taking friends I'm potentially being thrown under the bus right along with everyone else and I did the right thing and deleted the damn thing the moment I realized what it is. Do the right thing and potentially be branded a sex offender for life. I probably need to look at the laws in depth but its concerning.

What you're talking about is why I emphasized, or tried to, the phrase for any reason. In many places, and at the federal level, you would be guilty of possessing child pornography given the above situation.

The pertinent laws are among the most poorly written of all criminal legislation; largely because, as I said earlier, its a sort of berserk button issue.

Grakmar wrote:...as you don't want to condone the activity.

Why not? Sex is natural. In other cultures historically women have married much younger. Even toddlers do masturbatory things because "it feels good." I really think letting them know the consequences is the best way. This is isn't terribly different from looking at porn on the internet (those people are real too, after all).

Why is the west so scared of the sex that drives it's culture to begin with?

Grakmar wrote:Legalizing it entirely isn't a good idea, IMO, as you don't want to condone the activity.

I still don't see the issue. Why are we punishing, for example, girls for taking pictures of themselves and sending them to other minors?

It seems sexist to me. Placing women between yet another set of coercive forces.

"Boy X forced me to send him nude pictures."

"Did you do it?"

"Yes."

"You're under arrest."

dogma wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Legalizing it entirely isn't a good idea, IMO, as you don't want to condone the activity.

I still don't see the issue. Why are we punishing, for example, girls for taking pictures of themselves and sending them to other minors?

It seems sexist to me. Placing women between yet another set of coercive forces.

"Boy X forced me to send him nude pictures."

"Did you do it?"

"Yes."

"You're under arrest."

She'd be under arrest, but so would the boy in that scenario. You can't solicit child pornography any more than you can create or distribute it.

And, we're only talking about a maximum fine of a few thousand dollars and some time in juvie. A full year seems rather excessive, but I doubt anyone would ever be sentenced to that strict of a punishment.

As I see it the issue is what the hell is the matter with these kids taking photos of themselves in compromising situations?

You send an electronic image of yourself nakee, it ends up on the net.
Someone surely has already stated such a law. If not I name it Chibi's Law.

Grakmar wrote:
She'd be under arrest, but so would the boy in that scenario. You can't solicit child pornography any more than you can create or distribute it.

And, we're only talking about a maximum fine of a few thousand dollars and some time in juvie. A full year seems rather excessive, but I doubt anyone would ever be sentenced to that strict of a punishment.

We're also talking about a disincentive to report that is, in many cases, equivalent to the one that once existed for rape.

The girl, in most states, would be forced to register as a sex offender. If having nude pictures floating around prevents employment, then it seems likely that being a registered sex offender would have a similar effect.

The laws against child porn in the US are God awful for many, many reasons; but the worst is likely that they are terribly sexist.

But hey, the US doesn't want to give women rights over their own bodies anyway, so why not take this step as well; while ranting about the sexism in Sharia of course.

I think you underestimate the general naivety of teenagers.

The problem here is that having identified a real crime -- perverts taking and trading sex pictures of underage children -- the law has not defined this with enough discrimination to prevent stupid teenagers sending their friends nudie pics from falling into the same net.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:As I see it the issue is what the hell is the matter with these kids taking photos of themselves in compromising situations?

You send an electronic image of yourself nakee, it ends up on the net.
Someone surely has already stated such a law. If not I name it Chibi's Law.

You know, I'm going to extend the matter.

How many people here have been attracted to a volleyball player? Not even the beach form where small swim suits are basically mandatory, but the gym variety in which spandex are popular.

That's all potential child porn, meaning that all high school websites featuring pictures of their volleyball teams are potential distributors and possessors of child porn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think you underestimate the general naivety of teenagers.

The problem here is that having identified a real crime -- perverts taking and trading sex pictures of underage children -- the law has not defined this with enough discrimination to prevent stupid teenagers sending their friends nudie pics from falling into the same net.

I fully endorse any legislation that makes the coercion of minors, by adults, into producing child pornography illegal. I also understand that legislation is limited by language and practicality such that there are going to be cases in which people that meant no malice are charged or convicted.

What I don't condone, and am actually fairly irritated by, is the unnecessarily vague understanding of what constitutes child pornography, and how that can negatively effect people that I believe are not guilty of anything.

For that matter, I'm not sure that pederasts who view images of children in suggestive situations are guilty of any meaningful crime insofar as the children were not forced into the act. That isn't to say that I endorse the sexualization of children, but only that I'm not certain that viewing these images actually brings about a desire to view more of them, or go further; which seems to be the real fear.

Not sure if it is the same here in the UK Dogma
Schools are pretty tight about photos and videos, even at Nativity Plays for the little ones.

We have to have parental consent to be able to photograph the kids in a context with no such possibility of sexualisation. ie Child fully clothed, photograph face, hands and completed project sort of thing.

That doesn't happen here. Or, rather, it does but the consent to photograph is hidden in the participation agreement that all parents have to sign (in Illinois, anyway).

Again though, we're going to run into disagreement about whether or not someone is fully clothed, and further questions of sexism. If women's volleyball can't be photographed, can men's wrestling?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know it could be dangerous in extreme situations, but is sexting even wrong? Maybe they're looking at this the wrong way.

yea its wrong. All those images of the girls can and are used against them for harassment purposes. Thats the real issue.

As a mature adult, if naked pics of me exist outside my own computer, it's because I either incredibly trust where they are or I'm prepared for the pics to "leak" so to speak. As a teenager, the same rules apply. It seems sexting education might be more in order here. "Responsibly" sharing pictures isn't wrong, and shouldn't be punished. I just see more of a "grr, sex is bad" slant coming out of this than anything.

Thats the problem. We're not dealing with mature adults here. While other parts of their bodies may have developed, their brains haven't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:As I see it the issue is what the hell is the matter with these kids taking photos of themselves in compromising situations?

You send an electronic image of yourself nakee, it ends up on the net.
Someone surely has already stated such a law. If not I name it Chibi's Law.

Chibi wins the thread.

dogma wrote:That doesn't happen here. Or, rather, it does but the consent to photograph is hidden in the participation agreement that all parents have to sign (in Illinois, anyway).

Again though, we're going to run into disagreement about whether or not someone is fully clothed, and further questions of sexism. If women's volleyball can't be photographed, can men's wrestling?

It's not about whether or not a viewer of an image could possibly be aroused by the image (Rule 36 would make all images porn). The issue is that the image is intended to sexualize the subject.

Someone fully clothed in proper apparel in a non-sexual pose is in no way porn. Even if that clothing is spandex.

Even in cases where the subject is totally nude, there's plenty of images that are art and not porn. (Although, this is a much finer line and images of minors are almost always banned.)

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know it could be dangerous in extreme situations, but is sexting even wrong? Maybe they're looking at this the wrong way.

yea its wrong. All those images of the girls can and are used against them for harassment purposes. Thats the real issue.

As a mature adult, if naked pics of me exist outside my own computer, it's because I either incredibly trust where they are or I'm prepared for the pics to "leak" so to speak. As a teenager, the same rules apply. It seems sexting education might be more in order here. "Responsibly" sharing pictures isn't wrong, and shouldn't be punished. I just see more of a "grr, sex is bad" slant coming out of this than anything.

Thats the problem. We're not dealing with mature adults here. While other parts of their bodies may have developed, their brains haven't.

Their brains have developed a fair amount, however, at least to the point where accountability to actions isn't beyond realistic scope. I can recall being a teenager many times I was right and my father wouldn't believe me or would say my reasoning was wrong, only to come back and say years later to admit he was wrong. Being an adult doesn't automatically make someone smarter or more mature (not that teens should have the same level of responsibility by any stretch, just saying they're not invalids). Should Timmy and Julia's parents have to pay $4000 if their kids were exploring sexually? Does this make any iota of sense? To me the $4000 fine is more harassment than a social stigma, but then again what is law enforcement there for half the time.

Some kids need a class in common sense

The problem with teens is not so much a less developed brain as much as it is the raging hormones and chemicals that are still pushing their body to grow as well leftover evolutionary priorities rearing their ugly head. It isn't that teens are stupid or incapable, it is that they are highly irrational across the board. Not 100% of the time, but enough that pretending that they have fully matured is silly. Still, the laws as they are now insufficient to deal with the growing technology. As I pointed out before, when had this exact same conversation not that long ago, the number of teenagers creating amatuer porn pics to share has drastically risen in the last 15 years or so. What I failed to mention is that it probably would have been the same back in the 80's and earlier if there were cheap and easy ways to transmit naughty photos to each other. Having to take a roll of film to be developed limits the number of people that do that from extreme extroverts and the very insecure that need reinforcement to just about anyone.

Ahtman wrote:The problem with teens is not so much a less developed brain as much as it is the raging hormones and chemicals that are still pushing their body to grow as well leftover evolutionary priorities rearing their ugly head. It isn't that teens are stupid or incapable, it is that they are highly irrational across the board. Not 100% of the time, but enough that pretending that they have fully matured is silly. Still, the laws as they are now insufficient to deal with the growing technology. As I pointed out before, when had this exact same conversation not that long ago, the number of teenagers creating amatuer porn pics to share has drastically risen in the last 15 years or so. What I failed to mention is that it probably would have been the same back in the 80's and earlier if there were cheap and easy ways to transmit naughty photos to each other. Having to take a roll of film to be developed limits the number of people that do that from extreme extroverts and the very insecure that need reinforcement to just about anyone.

Agreed, Sexting is just a "technological extension" of a pre existing condition.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Grakmar wrote:...as you don't want to condone the activity.

Why not? Sex is natural. In other cultures historically women have married much younger. Even toddlers do masturbatory things because "it feels good." I really think letting them know the consequences is the best way. This is isn't terribly different from looking at porn on the internet (those people are real too, after all).

Why is the west so scared of the sex that drives it's culture to begin with?

Your right, there is nothing wrong with it. But people seem to not like to talk about it in public, at least not until recently.

One thing I have been wondering. If you received one of these said texts, and didn't delete it, you would likely be convicted of child pornography. But what if the person who gets it is also underage. I mean, obviously if its going around the internet that is wrong, but otherwise, what's the big deal, if they keep things to themselves?

Also, does "sexting" have to be pictures? Can they be messages too? If so, what are the ramifications of that?

Well, I don't think anyone who is underage should be labeled as a sex offender. That doesn't make much sense, unless the issue was sexual harassment or rape or something.

Basically. Minors with pornographic pictures of other minors probably shouldn't be registered sex offenders.

Hmm
Not entirely sure Mike.

A street wise 16/17 year old with kiddie pics of 13/14 year olds is okay? It is a grey area, and there is still a potential for sexual predation by those legally considered as minors.

Re Technology.
I sure as hell did not want to get my kit off for others to see me nakee as a teenager, and am certain if the same tech was available I still wouldn't have wanted to.

Sneaky feeling there may also be an element of the old demon alcohol in the equation also.

I think encouraging sexual activity in underage kids is really dumb, because in the end sex is for reproduction, not recreation. Modern contraceptives are really good at fooling us into thinking differently, but kids can't be relied upon to use contraception properly, or at all. And I DO think that pictures like that will encourage the behaviour. And result in highly negative social issues too- in fact I see that in my job at the moment. It's incredibly biased against girls too, because 95% of teenage boys are disgusting freaks.
Teenagers and sex isn't something I'm liberal about. Nor do I think there's any need for us to be liberal about it. I don't think all those people telling us sex is inherently healthy are correct.

If sex is purely for reproduction then I assume you believe gays are in the wrong for behaving how they do. My primary concern is that sexuality is treated as something so forbidden and dirty yet gets thrown at everyone constantly anyway. I don't think kids should be running around having sex willy-nilly but I think it's a worse idea to tell them that it's bad or that it's some thing they shouldn't act on outside of [arbitrarily-decided standard]. I spent too many years feeling guilty for having feelings and natural body functions because someone told me it was bad randomly. A healthy balance is something I'm a fan of, and making parents pay money for natural urges is stupid and shows how corrupt laws are, not how "morally hazardous" (since morality has one simple definition, after all) teens who have the same feelings everyone has had are.

Da Boss wrote:I think encouraging sexual activity in underage kids is really dumb, because in the end sex is for reproduction, not recreation. Modern contraceptives are really good at fooling us into thinking differently, but kids can't be relied upon to use contraception properly, or at all. And I DO think that pictures like that will encourage the behaviour. And result in highly negative social issues too- in fact I see that in my job at the moment. It's incredibly biased against girls too, because 95% of teenage boys are disgusting freaks.
Teenagers and sex isn't something I'm liberal about. Nor do I think there's any need for us to be liberal about it. I don't think all those people telling us sex is inherently healthy are correct.

How is sex not healthy? I mean, it can have negative side effects, but if it is so bad, then why do we have the natural urge to do it? Just my thoughts...

I mean, I personally believe in moderation in all things, but still.

How is sex not healthy?

It can cause morning sickness

Women only get morning sickness because they're releasing the sin built up from the horrible acts they committed prior Devil's tool, a woman is.