Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Marybeth Hicks :: Townhall.com Columnist
'Sexting' Uncool, But Also Wrong
by Marybeth Hicks
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 

I've been told that if I'd been a parent in the 1950s, I probably would have spoken out against Elvis Presley's pelvic thrust as a dance move. The theory is that teens of every generation will find their own ways to rebel against the cultural norm, and that parents from one generation to the next always object with questions such as “What is this world coming to?”

Perhaps. But that doesn't stop me from asking the question, “What IS this world coming to?”

These days I'm becoming increasingly convinced I should have walked the earth in prehistoric times. Clearly, I'm a dinosaur, especially when it comes to parenting and culture.

I'd happily accept Elvis' pelvis over the twisted notions of sexual normality that now permeate our culture. To wit: Last week's feature on ABC's “Good Morning, America” about “objectum sexuals,” defined as folks who develop intimate relationships with things, not people.

Apparently, a sexual relationship with a park bench now is considered simply an alternative lifestyle. If this is true, we'd have to decriminalize public indecency laws on the grounds that they discriminate against those who choose to express their affection for their loved ones. After all, we can't dictate the yearnings of our hearts, can we? We love what we love.

If that sounds absurd, here's another one for you. The Vermont legislature this week will conduct hearings on a bill that already has passed its Senate and will now be considered by its House Judiciary Committee, which would legalize the practice of “sexting” among teenagers 13 to 18.

Currently, it is illegal to electronically distribute sexually explicit photographs of children and teens. People who do this are prosecuted and go to jail, where even the other hardened criminals think they're creepy.

Problem: the new fad among teens is to take dirty pictures of themselves and send those photos via cellular phone to their adolescent lovers. It's “consensual” as long as the person who receives the photos doesn't forward them on to the guys in the locker room without his girlfriend's permission. (Don't be silly. That never happens.)

Vermont doesn't want to prosecute and punish teens for what it deems an act of poor judgment. Legislators have gone on record as saying they think the practice is foolish/stupid/wrong, but that teens should not be marked as sex offenders for what is essentially self-exploitation.

Good plan, Vermont. Declare something is wrong and then legalize it. No, really. I get it.

Not that it´s easy to get teens to do what´s right. They don´t operate in the world of moral absolutes, since that world went the way of the woolly mammoth.

This is why, in an article about this insane legislative effort, an expert on talking to teens says adults should not try to convince kids that sexting is wrong, but rather we should focus our moral laser beams on the fact that sexting is “uncool.”

The logic: Teens don´t care about what´s right or wrong, only about what´s cool and uncool. Therefore, if we want to manage their “sexting” behavior, we have to convince them that truly cool people don´t do this.

Clearly, Vermont ought to spend its time declaring what is and isn't cool, since they don't seem to care about what is and isn't wrong.

It's enough to make you want to sit on a park bench somewhere and think about how weird our world has become.

Then again, that might not be such a great idea.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Marybeth Hicks is the author of Bringing up Geeks: How to Protect Your Kid’s Childhood in a Grow-up-too-fast World (Penguin/Berkley, July 2008).
Mary Beth...


Actually, Mary Beth,

It is not all that odd.

~~~

wobbie loves his blowup doll,

hul loves himself,

willie loves anyone with a large member,

thousands love obummer,

mario loves himself, and all deranged people,

Dr. Adams loves freedom,

dr. dugless loves insanity,

'kids' love their 'binkies' , any electronic weapon of mass immorality,

( And, 'kids' are actually baby goats, many are born as freemartins, and they gradually turn into one sex or the other as they mature.

Male goats are the nastiest animals on Earth.

Children, however, are born as one sex or the other, and stay that way for life. )


Whine All You Want
I rarely side with the government, but Vermont has it right this time. Teens should NOT be criminalized for being dumb and irrational. Teens historically have always been that way. Classifying them in the same way that we classify real pedophiles and child molestors is far more agregeous than naked pictures. Nobody puts a gun to these kids heads and tells them they have to do this. It's all their choice. Let them make their mistakes and live with the consequences. Keep the government out. You may not like it, but tough. This is a free society. Why not just save yourself the trouble and move to Saudi Arabia where it's illegal for most women to even communicate with men who aren't their husbands.

Sexting can threaten careers/lives
Anything that gets on the internet can be there forever. No great editor in the ether takes down posts or shuffles through them to eliminate the stupid and self destructive.

Anyone who has posted his/her pubescent b**bs or er*ctions at 13 or 14 may find that each is denied college adminssions, taking the BAR exam, working in any phase or category of medicine, seeking any law enforcement jobs, and losing certification as a teacher.

In fact, someone who is forced to register as a sex offender is never going to be able to volunteer as a school crossing guard or hand-shaking greeter at the courthouse.

If a registered sex offender, for reasons people in general will never know the cause of, choices of housing, mortgages, commuting areas, et. al. may all be decided by local, state, and federal laws that are very hard to challenge, as everything is clocked in *confidentiality,*

Also, someone who has had her/himself posted in nude or lewd photos/video may discovere if ever presented with a legal situation in which as a defendant someone might claim the right to privacy, that *right* has been lost if the prosecution can find those teenaged postings still floating around the internet.

If people can no longer be reached by *right and wrong* as schools and even churches have been busy subscribing to no morality or ethics, perhaps showing young people they may spend their lives as a burger tosser will help them focus.


Home made pornography
So-called "sexting" is simply home-made pornography, authored by minors. The San Francisco of the east, aka Vermont, seems the perfect petri dish for the kind of nonsense being reported in this column. Next they'll legalize shoplifting for minors, dope-smoking for those under 21, and so on.

Judges and prosecutors used to show discretion when it came to irresponsible acts by young people. Now, the government doesn't even trust their own, instead requiring the highest level of the overbearing authority to reach down into every level and dictate, micromanage, our lives. Not to mention forward their own godless, sexualized, and yes, legalize all sins decadent lifestyle -- by making social policy.

I have a high-school aged child now looking at colleges. She asked me, "what about University of Vermont?" My answer was simple, 'that's where spoiled, rich kid tree-hugging dope smokers kill 4 year partying, honey. All of Vermont is out.'

Renny, et al
Renny and the author may have the facts right but they have missed the point entirely.

Having lewd pictures of oneself emerge from the mists of the Internet can indeed carry some negative consequences. However, being labeled as a child sex offender for one's entire life will definitely have much greater consequences. Neither set of consequences is going to have any effect whatsoever on the behavior.

Leave it to conservative authoritarians to advocate for a punishment that is far far worse than the actual crime, and useless to boot. Making things worse...the conservative way.







Maybe Vermont is...
... making up for blowing it (no pun intended) on fabricating a gay marriage right by making sure that a 16 year old girl who sends a picture of her boobs to her boyfiend won't be branded as a "sex offender" for life. When will those of us on the Right (the good guys) notice that the more "sex offenders" we create, the more sexual depravity we seem to prompt?


Hello parents!
Take away the "camera" phone.

I have to disagree with the author.
Nobody, even the VT legislature is saying that it is a good idea for 13-18 yr olds to send pics of their privates to one another. The issue here is how to deal with it.

In some states the sender and/or recipient can be convicted of various sex crimes and sentenced to a LIFE of registration as sex offenders. That punishment simply does not fit the 'crime'.

We didn't have camera phones when I was a kid. If we had, and one of my g/f's had sent me pics of her boobs I'd have certainly appreciated the gesture. Would you suggest that for that I should be forced to register as a sex offender and prohibited from living near a school for LIFE? That punishment simply does not fit the 'crime'.

Finally, one problem to consider here is the issue of watering down the sex offender list. Would you place a bunch of people on sex offender lists based on their taking or receiving dirty pics while in HS? If you do that, pretty soon people will not take the sex offender lists nearly as seriously as they do today.

I have to disagree with the author.
Nobody, even the VT legislature is saying that it is a good idea for 13-18 yr olds to send pics of their privates to one another. The issue here is how to deal with it.

In some states the sender and/or recipient can be convicted of various sex crimes and sentenced to a LIFE of registration as sex offenders. That punishment simply does not fit the 'crime'.

We didn't have camera phones when I was a kid. If we had, and one of my g/f's had sent me pics of her boobs I'd have certainly appreciated the gesture. Would you suggest that for that I should be forced to register as a sex offender and prohibited from living near a school for LIFE? That punishment simply does not fit the 'crime'.

Finally, one problem to consider here is the issue of watering down the sex offender list. Would you place a bunch of people on sex offender lists based on their taking or receiving dirty pics while in HS? If you do that, pretty soon people will not take the sex offender lists nearly as seriously as they do today.

It's ok...dinosaurs die out.
Parents, teachers, and especially the government are not authorities on what's "cool". Telling kids what's "cool" is credibility suicide. Vermont got this one right- government can stay out of this one.

The best, and probably only, way to prevent kids from making bad choices like this is for parents to explain (not tell) why certain behavior is dumb, beneath them, and is something they themselves will regret later on. Speak to them from personal experience, but don't lecture. Being dumb, once they recognize what that means, is royally "uncool".

Jeremy
The only way to prevent anyone from making bad choices is what they learn from making bad choices. People have always and will always make bad choices and I defend their right to make them BUT it is entirely reasonable to have standards. No one suffers because they cant enagae in "sexting".

Liberty.....
did they have polaroid cameras when you were a kid? Do we have digital cameras now? Take all the pics you want but why do we need to have our kids doing this in school when they should be studying???? WTF??? What rights are being trampled here? When I was in HS I much preferred seeing my GF's b**bs in person. Why do people think that because they CAN do something that they have a RIGHT or should be allowed to do it? Please explain.

n
LoL, I have to admit that in HS, and now, seeing a g/f's boobs in person is preferable.

As far as the in school objection in your post I don't think that is exactly on point. Yes, kids are supposed to be at school to learn. If they are doing something else that is a school issue, not a sexting issue.

If your g/f had given you a Polaroid picture of her boobs when you were in HS, I don't think that you should be labeled as a sexual predator for having received that pic. I didn't necessarily say that kids have a right to do this. What I said was that I don't think it makes sense to sentence a kid who does this to a lifetime sentence of registering as a sex offender or sexual predator.

Liberty
LOL I have to admit they are better in person then in a pic LOL

As to the sex offender issue it IS illegal to possess nude or sexually explicit pics of minors however I get your point about being labled a sex offender. The problem is weeding out the exploiters of children who collect or distribute such pics from the concentual bf and gf sharing pics.

Those legislatures in Vermont
just hope to be able to see all the pictures as they are all a bunch of pedophiles! More pictures of pre-pubescent little boys and girls just gives them more woodies!

Like everything else
Trying to legislate away "sexting" will just fail miserably. The Gov. can't legislate away poverty, inequality, drugs, crime or anything else. Is it "wrong"? Maybe to you, but not to those taking pictures of themselves. I'm sure Ms. Hicks' parents said they would have taken Emily Dickenson novels over Elivs Prestley any day. Society isn't what you want it to be, it's what it naturally flows toward. If it naturally flows toward a less open society, that's what it does. It just happens to be flowing to a sexually open one and it can only go so far before it starts moving the other way again. How do you think we got from the Rennaisance, where full nudity was not a problem, to the Puritains? It just flowed. Leave it alone, like last season's fashion trends, a less sexually open society will be back in society eventually.

Self-exploitation my foot
The idea that the girls are only exploiting themselves is dangerous. The first person to show the pictures to anyone other than the intended recipient is exploiting the subject's trust. The person who pressures a naive girl into taking a picture of herself, saying only one person will ever see it, is exploiting. If no exploiting was going on, and this was truly consensual and private between two individuals, we would never know about it. The fact that some teenage girls are incredibly easy to exploit does not make it okay. In fact, quite the opposite.

The way to stop a child from doing something is to make the consequence either more severe or more immediate, or both, not the other way around.

I don't even want to think about the consequences of the "You can't prove those pictures are mine and not my daughter's" defense. That just makes me sick.

to n
"As to the sex offender issue it IS illegal to possess nude or sexually explicit pics of minors however I get your point about being labled a sex offender. The problem is weeding out the exploiters of children who collect or distribute such pics from the concentual bf and gf sharing pics."

I realize that it is illegal to possess nude or sexually explicit pics of minors. Actually, if I wanted to nitpick I think sexually explicit pics are prohibited but not nude pics (ie. Discovery channel type documentaries displaying tribal life). Nonetheless, I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement that the problem is weeding out exploiters as opposed to consensual b/f-g/f picture sharers.

I certainly don't have all the answers there. I don't know where exactly to draw the line. If you or I were to have a collection of pics of naked 14 yr olds that would be a problem and IMHO, we should be prosecuted as predators. However, if a 15 yr old has naked pics of his 14 yr old g/f I wouldn't advocate that the law treat him as a predatory sex offender. I just don't know where to draw the line. Leaving the girl's age at 14, what if the b/f is 16, what if he is 17, what if he is 18, what if he is 25?

My thoughts
I have no problem with sexting being illegal and their being legal consequences for it. I only object to the teenagers in question being forced to register as sex offenders if caught sexting. There is a stark difference between teenagers having pictures of other teenagers and a pedophile or sexual predator and it would be plain wrong to group them together in the eyes of the law as well. Having your legal status changed to sex offender would pretty much destroy your life and your chances of getting a great number of jobs. It's a hard issue but there must be a balance between personal responsibility and overreaching punishment for a lack thereof when it comes to this kind of issue.

Real Problem
I think the real problem here is not the b/f-g/f pictures. It is the girls who send naked pictures of themselves to boys they hope to have as boyfriends. These boys in turn send on to other boys. Or it is girls who take pictures of other girls and then send them to boys they know as a thrill (as one girl so far I've heard about did in gym class). These are venturing too far into porn to let slide by even though I'm sure if confronted it will be "but he's my boyfriend!" Parents need to get very involved in convincing their children to not do this.

And - Ratas - there are actually THREE kinds of children born. They are male, female, and hemorphodite. In the U.S. it is a law that if a hemorphodite is born the doctor is to immediately remove the male parts - without the parents even knowing it. But there are others from other countries out there.

Nate, the difference is in degree
The kids mean them to be porn, because when the US S. Ct. in its dotage enlarged the First Amend. to includre pornography in 1972, that act presaged the sexting of today.

In a 1975 book called the Future File, everyone is required to study porno as a school subject and people who have sex are called *users.* How prescient that author was.

Making ind. laws to protect young persons from stupid decisions is not likely feasible. There is too much stupidity to get around all of it. Let a couple get tagged as sex offenders, and immediately the word will get out and sexting will be stopped dead without a lawyer having to raise a finger.

In the 1970s, an era of fire
crackers was all the rage in schools. Sometimes we had *fire drills* two and three times a day for warnings of fire cracker raids.

It never stopped. We had the fire department talk about injuries and houses destroyed by fire, yadda yadda.

One day, some nitwit threw an M-80 at a friend getting off the school bus. Exactly what this *kid* (17) expected, I never heard. But he blew away half of his friend's face, knocked an eye out of its socket, and then fled jurisdiction, having finally realized what a jerk and criminal he was.

That was the END OF WTH FIRECRACKERAS. I taught another 30 years in the system,and no other fire cracker was ever set off, not even little punky ones that sound like snapping fingers.

Then we had fire alarms set off until the fire department spiked them with an dyes, The first student apprehended got a $500 fine (1981) and expelled, and that was the end of the fire alarms.

One or two nitwit teens get a sex offender conviction and sexting will also vanish.

Liberals have been so busy saving people from themselves that they've destroyed the inner cities, created entire gov't plantations for minorities who got freed from the Southern ones in the 19th C., and loosed sexual libertinism and the drug culture on slums. How wonderful liberals were to save all those people. They started this sex krap, let the law finish it.

Obama not meet Constitutional criteria
Obama does not meet the criteria to be President under the U.S. Constitution. Why doesn't Obama release his college applications or his passport records? Because they will show that he is an Indonesian citizen, as he never gave up his Indonesian citizenship when he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia at age 10. (Obama's mother remarried an Indonesian when Barack was five, and she and Barack moved to Indonesia, where both became Indonesian citizens). In 1981, Obama traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother, and stopped off on the return trip to visit Pakistan with school friends. He traveled there on his Indonesian passort. Why doesn't Obama release his original birth certificate? Because it will show that he was not born in Hawaii, rather he was born in Kenya (his father's native country).

Either way, because he is an Indonesian, or because he was born in Kenya, Obama is not qualified to be President. Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party know this to be true, and he deceived the American people by keeping it a secret and refusing to release the records. Mutliple legal cases are challenging Obama's status to be President. Check out-- wnd.com or obamacrimes.us or defendourfreedoms.us and spread the word, as the media REFUSES to cover this issue! The truth about Obama will be revealed.

Agreement
Vermont has flagrantly (yet unsurprisingly) continued to lax their views on underage sexual misconduct and inappropriateness. While I agree that these young teens (some of whom age around 13 and 14) should not be registered as public sex offenders, they should be reprimanded (and punished) for their actions. Vermont legislature needs to enforce restrictions against underaged teens from transferring/displaying/receiving lude pictures and video with consequences. Counseling, community serivce, and/or public humiliation should be used as disciplinary measures if caught 'sexting'. Hopefully VT can get their act together and retract their 'free thinking' attitude on this issue and take action.

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You...
I knew all along that these types of laws would never be used to actually stop real child pornographers or sex-offenders. They're simply designed to make money for the bureaucrats and security companies that push for these bills. If anyone was genuinely concerned about the welfare of teens, then you should have read the laws carefully when you voted them into law (I did and I tried to save your kids all the hassle by voting "no", but I was only part of 30% of actually smart people who know what the consequences of these laws are.) You made this mess, so don't expect me to bail you out. I'm more interested in cougars, if you know what I mean (and I mean older women in their 30s-to-40s, and I'm twenty two.)

45 CAL
You said:

"In the U.S. it is a law that if a hemorphodite is born the doctor is to immediately remove the male parts - without the parents even knowing it."

There is no such "law" in the "United States" it varies from State to State but essentially they all say the doctor consults with the parents what actions might be appropriate. There are several advocate groups that work to curtail any "pressure" be put on the parents to make a particular decision -- much like abortion issues they are trying to prevent parents from coming under pressure from "experts and authorities" to take immediate surgical action.

Tell Congress to STOP the Spending!
Enough is enough!

If you attended a Tea Party, great! But take the next step and follow it up with a message to your members of Congress.

Use the link below to let them know how you feel.

Tell them to STOP the Spending!

http://www.conservativeoutpost.com/campaign/cta/stop_spendi ng

We surround them
Thank you for a great article. Don't ever forget that there are more parents out here like you than those parents who would actually agree with what the intelligentsia in Vermont are trying to perpetrate. Those of us who are actually raising our children and not constantly worrying about whether or not we are our childrens' best friend will always be fighting the good fight against our declining culture. Anyone who thinks that 13 year olds "sexting" is anything else but WRONG has something seriously wrong in their mental development.

A lifetime sentence of 'sex offender'
is a bit extreme but charges of disorderly conduct/public nudity might well be in order.

We ought rather get our kids Morse telegraph transmitters. ;) They're faster than texting (as Jay Leno showed on a recent YouTube clip), and no photos are possible.

We will not permit our DD to have a cell phone. Lead us not into temptation, we say.

Draw a Line,
Why should teens be insulated from the consequences of their stupidity?

If they're adult enough to be having sex they're adult enough to be liable for the full, criminal consequences of child pornography.

If they're not adult enough to bear the responsibility of being "labeled" as sex offenders then they are not adult enough to be having sex.

I realize that the social conservatives and the social liberals will never get together on the morality of lack thereof in regards to non-marital sexual relations between consenting adults but, ...

Why is it so hard to unify and draw the line that SEX IS NOT FOR THE UNDERAGE, PERIOD!!!!!?

Teens do not need to be told that they can get away with anything and everything because they're too young to be responsible. They need to be told that there is right and there is wrong and they are expected to do right and avoid wrong because choosing to do wrong has dire consequences.

Tax it!
Let the nanny state put a sin tax on it.

Meet you once!!
Hi,

Its coooool!!!

[url=http://mymmoshop.com]VirtualCurrency[/url]

Meet you once!!
hi,
I am very pleased with the thought and don’t feel like adding anything in it. It’s a perfect answer.

[url="http://mymmoshop.com"rel="DoFollow"]VirtualCurrency[/url]



Meet you once!!

hi,
I am very pleased with the thought and don’t feel like adding anything in it. It’s a perfect answer.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
The very best in financial advice from Dave Ramsey, Larry Kudlow, Motely Fool and many more plus Dilbert!