Although I support nudism both financially by visiting resorts and by bringing new people (my girlfriend) into it, there is no logical connection between cases of cell phone nudity involving underage persons and the right to be nude. Here is an example why these persons should face criminal charges: if a person who is underage sends that picture to someone who's is of legal age say 29, then that person is in possesion (sic) of child pornography.If a underage person feels like it they can send the pics to anyone and that person can become a criminal. Furthermore, sex is in every movie,TV show, and song out today so censoring sex is not doing so well, perhaps it has been sensationalized a bit to much because nobody takes the consequences of sex seriously in America.The reader is missing the point. Yes, sexting is not the same as nudism, but there is a relationship because it speaks to societal attitudes towards sex and nudity. Any society that would make criminals out of children who are only exploring their own natural sexuality should be ashamed of itself.
Not every photograph or image of a nude child is pornography. There is total hysteria over this issue now, with art galleries being raided, and art magazines being investigated. Somehow the sensibility that a nude child is cute and natural has evolved into a perversion that such images appeal only to prurient interests and child predators. Parents taking nude photos of their babies are being arrested when they take their shots to be developed and printed.
The reader professes that "nobody takes the consequences of sex seriously in America". The problem is that the opposite is true, that the consequences are far too severe. What we need is to establish a more open dialogue with children as they develop and become more curious about their own bodies and feelings.
In this specific instance, we are talking about a 15 year-old girl who was arrested and thrown in jail for sending a nude photo of herself to classmates. Was this a stupid thing for her to do? Of course it was, but teenagers have been doing stupid things since the dawn of time. Kids have been exposing themselves, touching each other, and having sex forever, but the difference today is that we have photographic evidence, and that is freaking out the older generation.
When mom and dad fumbled around in the back seat of a car on lover's lane, nobody had a cell phone camera to record the event for posterity. We live in a Facebook and MySpace era, where hooking up electronically on the Internet, or by cell phones, is how the mating game is being played. Many younger people think nothing of posting sexy photos of themselves for all to see.
Sexual behavior in the teenage world is subject to chaos theory, that no matter what is done to prevent or curb the activity, that it will evolve in unpredictable ways and find its way in the world.
There is a clear disconnect between natural and man-made laws when it comes to sexting. Rather than dealing with this as a manifestation of normal teenage behavior, the legal system is treating it as a felony criminal act. What these kids need is education and understanding. Yes, there should be consequences, but imposing a criminal record and a sex offender status upon a child is not only overkill, it's a perversion of justice.
UPDATE: The girl is now under house arrest and police are telling other kids in the school if they send nude photos with their phones they could go to jail for 20 years.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
2 comments:
"What these kids need is education and understanding. Yes, there should be consequences,"
What consequences do you think are appropriate? How do you think the 'education and understanding' ought to be given, or by whom?
Also, do you regard such a nude picture sent via texting as pornography?
Consequences should be dictated by the parents, not the police, or by a school if the sexting occured on the grounds. Loss of cell phone usage, grounding, etc. If the school was involved, perhaps a short suspension. The law has no business getting involved in teenage sexuality, which this is.
The responsibility for sex education lies with the parents, but I do believe that sex education should be taught in schools, a;though it should not be mandatory. Most of the sexual problems we have with kids in this country could be alleviated with some frank discussion and information. Generally parents just avoid talking about sex with their kids altogether, so they learn about if from their peers, and that's what leads to unwanted pregnancy or STDs.
As for the definition of pornography, many people believe that the nudist photos posted on this blog are pornographic. Some believe Michelangelo's David is pornographic - in Victorian times, a copy in London was "enhanced" with a fig leaf.Everyone seems to have their own definition.
But generally, no, I do not consider the transmission of topless of nude photos by teenagers with their cell phones to be true pornography, unless the images show explicit sexual activity. Most of these teenage photos, usually showing toplessness, are a form of flirting, and sexual experimentation.
The way the laws are written, anyone sending a nude photo of an underage child via cell phone can be charged with distributing child pornography, even if the sender is a child, and the subject is of his or herself. This makes no sense. The laws need to be rewritten so that children who do something stupid are not lumped in with the sleazy and totally reprehsible child pornography racketeers.
Post a Comment