Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Child Pornographer Next Door
by Maggie Gallagher
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Lately the phrase "unlimited texting" is taking on a whole new meaning:

"In Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah (at last count) minors have been arrested for 'sexting,' or sending or posting soft-core photo or video self-portraits," The American Prospect reported.

Among the recent cases:

Six high school students from Greensburg, Pa., were charged with possessing, manufacturing and distributing child pornography this month after nude pictures of several underage girls were confiscated from one of the boys' phones. The three 14- and 15-year-old girls who sent the self-made child porn and the three 16- and 17-year-old boys who received it were arrested.

In Fort Wayne, Ind., a teen boy faces felony obscenity charges for allegedly sending a photo of his private parts to several girl students.

Nor is this always kids' play. In a suburb of Phoenix, the assistant principal of Buckeye Union High School faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted on charges that he received (voluntarily) sexually explicit photos sent from a 17-year-old girl student's cell phone.

In Tennessee, the Memphis City Schools system is launching a new task force to deal with "sexting." In Utah, according to the Daily Herald of Provo, Republican state Rep. Sheryl Allen has introduced a bill that reduces the first child porn offenses by teenagers from felonies to misdemeanors, with repeaters subject to felonies.

North of Seattle in Bothell, Wash., two cheerleaders sent naked photos to their boyfriends, only to find that the images rapidly passed through the entire school, ending up in the office of a school administrator who punished both girls for violating the high school code. (The girls' parents are suing the school district for its staff members passing on naked photos of their daughter to several other school personnel.)

No wonder Larry Flynt is standing in line for some government stimulation. Oh, for the good old days when men were actually expected to pay for porn!

By now the way in which modern technology makes the consumption of pornography universally available is old hat. The sexting craze underlines the way the creation of pornography has been equally democratized -- in this case right into the hands of suburban 15-year-old girls pathetically trying to attract or keep the attention of porn-jaded boys.

Why do girls act like this? In his book "Boys Adrift," Leonard Sax writes about asking a 16-year-old girl "as gently as I could, why she was wearing a Hooters outfit to a school Halloween party."

"If you don't dress like this, nobody will even notice you," she told him.

The savvy scholars at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy uncovered the news that more than half of teen girls who send sexy photos of themselves do so in response to pressure from some guy -- usually boyfriends or potential boyfriends. It took an intrepid New York Post reporter to discover these and even sadder reasons why some suburban teen girls cave to ex-boyfriends' pressure for self-made porn.

A 15-year-old New Jersey high school sophomore explained that she fired off 40 naked pictures to her ex-boyfriend in a failed attempt to win him back. One 16-year-old from New Jersey offered a different reason: "(My ex-boyfriend) kept asking me, and it was annoying," so she finally gave in and sent him photos.

Gee, what could possibly be more pathetic than a girl who sends an ex-boyfriend naked pictures to win him back? How about a girl who sends an ex-boyfriend naked photos to make him go away?

Right now we have a decision to make: Is underage porn (these aren't really children) a crime or not? If so, how do we treat girls and boys who engage in it "for fun" and not for profit?

After all, if the thought that their fellow students, their teachers, their employers, their college admission officials, the entire football squad, their mothers and the local district attorney may well see these cell phone photos is not enough to discourage teens -- then we really have a problem on our hands.
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(118 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 11:44 AM EST
Enlightening!
Let start this snowball rolling! What is apparent in this whole scenario is the breaking down of moral standards within our family structures and school systems. It stems from the "situational ethics,' "moral relativism" mind-sets that are bred through ultra-liberal standards in living. It's underlying fault is in the removal of any form of spiritual guidance being ridiculed, down-played, and out-right mocked. These kids are only playing out what they see, are taught, and are encouraged to do. The sad part is that when it happens, adults act so taken aback and "righteously" indignant! I see them as so much a part of the problem, as well.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 12:17 PM EST
Ditto
Jerry..these kids have been raised in an amoral
world, and when responsible parents try to
stop it, they are demonized.
Planned Parenthood began decades ago to create
a continuing clientele by pushing their version of sex ed from k through 12 and it was having that taught in schools which broke down their normal inhibitions so that now with several generations having grown up with that brain washing with no absolutes..it isn't surprising to those of us who KNEW this would be the result of the expulsion of God from the schools and now public square. Scripture is clear on
what would happen to those who harm one of His children..this campaign has led to the death of childrens souls. I pray God will have mercy on us as a nation, having allowed this hedonism to continue has earned us His Judgement..
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 12:20 PM EST
good column
Maybe it is because she did not get into any prescriptions, but this may be the first Gallagher article I have seen which I agree with throughout. It is hard to imagine much more pathetic than the scenarios she spells out. (Although sending pictures to someone who has dumped one stretches the idea of saying that that someone has put pressure on one for the pictures).

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 12:30 PM EST
And it shows
The problem with law to address questions like this. Laws against child porn were never meant to address teens taking pictures of themselves and sending them to their classmates. These people should have never been charged with such, no prosecutor should ever prosecute such a case and no jury (if they were sane) should ever convict. If these aren't the kind of cases that scream for jury nullification--none are. If I was ever called to be on this type of jury, I'd be a total faithless one. I'd say I'd have an open mind and give the prosecution a shot knowing full well there is no chance in hell I'd vote to convict.

This is an issue best solved by the parents, not the courts. So now the teens have to carry around "sexual predator" for the rest of their lives? The prosecutors have gone mad, the entire United States has lost its collective mind, where harmless teen antics become felonies that follow them for the rest of their lives. What an anal retentive f'ed up country this is.

Years ago, girls would flash people, now they use a cellphone to do it. The only thing that has changed is the technology and the prudes inside a number of DA offices.

Get a grip.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 12:37 PM EST
Total BS
"Let start this snowball rolling! What is apparent in this whole scenario is the breaking down of moral standards within our family structures and school systems."

Kids have been doing this forever. The only difference is instead of doing it live behind the school they are doing it with a cell phone. The only real difference is the technology and the prudes now infecting the US colelctive brain.

40 years ago no DA would have prosecuted some teens for an illegal strip club? Or public indecency. They would be turned over to the parents and they'd handle it--and I can bet the punishment for the girl would be much more harsh while the boys...well boys will be boys.

Today, they are labled Child porngraphers and tagged as a sexual predator for the rest of their lives--having to register with the state and some 30 years later will have to move because a bus stop is 150 feet from their house?

Talk about a f'ed up country. Has stupidity leaked into the US water supply?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 12:50 PM EST
Tea Party
"Jerry..these kids have been raised in an amoral world."

And how is this any different from say what was going on 40 years ago? This sorta thing has been going on ever since there was co-education. Again the only thing that has changed is the technology and the over reaction by those in charge--of course over reaction is the most American of responses. Just look at McMartin Preschool for an example of that.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:02 PM EST
No... It's In the Culture
Despite what Akagi says, teens have not been doing this forever! This is a result of cultural perversion. Kids, being kids, take their cues in concepts or right and wrong from many sources. But, as never before, the popular culture is prevalent due to its extreme modern pervsasiveness. And, as never before, that culture is sexualized, morbidized and morally ambiguous.

Is it any wonder that teen girls now send nude pictures of themselves to boyfriends? Vanessa Hudgens did... and without consequence. The Spears sisters were sexually active from their early teens and, despite their public turmoils, are still hailed by the culture czars and are part of the "rich and famous" scene. Dakota "America's Daughter" Fanning brought child porn to into the mainstream at the age of 12 and is still fawned over by the Hollywood pundits, her "Hounddog" movie never discussed. But it can be found in Blockbuster- and around kid's movies- for children to find.

We've de-moralized (and decriminalized) behavior that once landed adults in jail and overtly passed it along to children, even those in their preteens, by using other kids to forward the concepts. Is it any wonder that impressionable children come to consider this normal at an early age? Child degradation of the worst order (and for adult profit) is now at the "heart" of our popular culture. And we let it happen.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:04 PM EST
No one mentions if these naked
messages get posted to the web, they are there forecver.

They are not considered childish pranks by admissions officers and prospective employers

Most major industries still have morals clauses in their contracts: law, medicine, education, and gov't work.

A person could be prevented from driving a school bus part time 20 years from now.

A person could be prevented as a retiree from bseing a courthouse greeter 40 years from now.

And people who say this was all accepted as teenaged nonsense 40 years ago, didn't live 40 years ago.

40 years ago the mini skirt had not yet migrated from Eng. to the US. Living together was called shacking up, and people tried not to admit to it if they were involved. *The pill* had only been generally prescribed for three years. Words like herpes, chlamydia, genital warts, AIDS, even candida albicans were never heard.

40 years ago minority families were 90% married with only 10% illegitimacy. It's now 70%. And part of the reason you have this corruption of young girls in particular is the inane posts on here talking about how everyone was *doing it*--as in sending nakied photos--40 years ago. Bullshyt.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:06 PM EST
Notes
Dear Jerry, Tea Party and Lon. I work a lot on this issue on my blogsite... along with political concerns. You can Google "Steven Mark Pilling" and "Xanga" to find my website. Best wishes.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:27 PM EST
my two cents
1) The children being mentioned here are the grandchildren of 'the love generation'.

2) As ye sew so shall ye reap

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:28 PM EST
one more thing
See 'Taken'


scary
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:52 PM EST
Kids are kids 2009
These kids are being kids using available technology. Sorry, but the mentality of a 14-year-old hasn't changed. From an adult perspective, they are being stupid and they clearly don't understand the long-term consequences. I wish I could protect my daughters from the reality of technology and their own immaturity, but I can't. So I teach and show and hope and lose sleep.

The saddest part isn't that a young girl exposed herself to a boy to gain his attention--that's not new or even news. The saddest part is that now millions of people will see her do it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 1:52 PM EST
Renny
"They are not considered childish pranks by admissions officers and prospective employers."

No, but besides the point. Many things aren't--should they all be made criminal?

"And people who say this was all accepted as teenaged nonsense 40 years ago, didn't live 40 years ago."

Yes I did. But I'll extend my remarks to when I was actually in high school. 30 years ago, better? Girls have been flashing boys since there were boys to flash.

"40 years ago minority families were 90% married with only 10% illegitimacy."

This is total BS. If by minority you mean black--which is what you mean.

Read the Moynihan Report (1965). At that time, nearly 40% of black children were living in "broken" homes. 25% of black women were either divorced, single or living apart from their husband. 25% of black births in 1965 were llegitimate. In 1940, they were 17%. Today they are 68%, yes the plight of the black family is bad, but it wasn't so good in 1965 either or in 1940. In 1940, the white rate was 2% but among blacks as I said 17%.

Your stats are valid for the period say 1910--if you believe Walter Williams--but not by 1965. The report claimed the black family was and I quote "By contrast, the family structure of lower class Negroes is highly unstable, and in many urban centers is approaching complete breakdown."

2009-1965=44 I believe and 44 is greater than 40 is it not?

Better revist your sources for their accuracy.





Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:02 PM EST
Children
Nothing in this article or the stories thus far reflect anything to do with Children. Teenagers are not (excepting, perhaps, some developmental anomalies) children.

Children cease to be children when they reach adolescence.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:08 PM EST
Terry
1) Teens doing foolish things like flashing and the like have been around way longer than the "love generation."

2) Taken? So? Sexual slavery has been around too--for Millennias. It was SOP for women of conquered countries to be taken as slaves--the Mongols, Xiong Nu, Nuzhen, Greek, Romans, Persians, whomever. Women sold by non-state actors equally as ancient. It does look like a good movie, but hardly anything to do with pictures on cellphones by stupid teens.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:11 PM EST
Steve maybe you should
study a little history. It's only been in the last sevenity years or so that American has gone insane over nudity. Before that we had a much more intelligent and reason ideal for nudity. Most likely because people back then had more common sense.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:18 PM EST
RE: Akagi
Good points.

Camera phones are today's Polaroid cameras.

The only real difference is that digital pictures are more easily distributed. Polaroids had to be physically delivered and couldn't be copied.

I recall at least as many cases in my own high school in Clarkston GA in the late 80's of girls & guys passing naughty Polaroids to their sweeties as Ms. Gallagher has cited of "sexting" in her article.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:35 PM EST
Story follows the usual line
Notice how the story follows the same old line: Boys are forcing girls to do something.

Women/girls are never to blame. It's always men/boys that are "forcing" them to do certain things.

These girls are enjoying the hell out of sending nude pictures of themselves. Has there ever been a shortage of women for Playboy? X-rated movies? Strippers? No.

But when they're asked about why they do it, they claim that they are being "forced" or "pressured" into doing it. But I guess it makes more sense to say that, than to admit that you're slutty or a voyeur that likes to have men seeing you in the nude.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:51 PM EST
terry
"Women/girls are never to blame. It's always men/boys that are "forcing" them to do certain things."

From what I've been told by former teachers that it is the girls that are the sexual aggressors and they throw themselves at not only their classmates but teachers as well and pity the poor fool that hits that bait. Off to jail as the justice system isn't as kind to foolish 20-something men having sex with aggressive teens as it is with 20-something females who have sex with teen boys.

One of these "victims" had a boyfriend who she met online and was in the military in which he went AWOL. She kept him in her closet like a pet--he could come out when her mom was at work and at night they'd have sex.

He was caught--of course--but I think the real predator in that relationship was the teen girl and not the stupid AWOLee.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 2:56 PM EST
You tell 'em, Maggie...
What we need is more of these teenagers arrested, tried and convicted as "sex offenders," so they can wear the label for the rest of their lives. Yea, that's the ticket. (sarc/)

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:04 PM EST
Akagi - RE: Prudes
"To the prudes of the world, anyone under 18 is..."

I honestly don't think it's because of the prudes. Rather, I am convinced that it is a sort of cultural myopia that is a direct result of western culture's rapid technological advancement.


Prior to the Industrial Revolution, life was, for lack of a better phrase, less complicated. Formal education and literacy were not mandated prerequisites for people to fully participate in society as Independent, Sovereign individuals. Indeed, young men & women were prepared to be (and quite often were) fully-functional, independent members of society by the time they were 15 or 16.

Since the Industrial Revolution, life has become more complicated. Over time, the need for more and more formal education grew. Even as recently as 1948, however, it was SO complicated...

[ See Also: Loretta Lynn - Married at 13 in 1948; Had 4 children by the time she was 17 (first at 14); Was a Grandmother at 29 (that means here OLDEST child was 15 when she became a Grandmother). ]

However, since the Technological Revolution of the last 20 - 30 years, particularly in America, it is getting to the point where formal education & literacy IS required to be a fully-functional, independent member of society.

As a result, we have reached a point where individuals need 10 - 14 years of formal instruction to be prepared for "Life". While they are getting prepared, they are more dependent on their parents for far longer into life than previously.

As a consequence, the longer their independence is delayed... the longer they remain dependent upon mom & dad... the longer we [parents & society, et al] "think" of them as "children"...
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:06 PM EST
Richard
I think Americans have always been pretty uptight over nudity and sex. I blame this on the Puritans first off and then later the ill effects from Victorian England--the English being another uptight lot. Remember the 1920s with women being totally covered in "swimsuits?" Traditionally East Asians and Western Europeans (French, Spaniards, Italians) all seem to have a much more healthy view in regards to sex and nudity than do Americans and the English. I don't think it is just in the last 70 years--I think it pre-dates the Republic itself.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:08 PM EST
RW
I knew you were just being sarcastic, but yes, I bet that is what these Theocratic Authoritarians want. I have an idea, why not just follow Iran's example and hang them.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:08 PM EST
RE: RW
"What we need is more of these teenagers arrested, tried and convicted as "sex offenders"..."

Yes! But...

We cannot stop there!! We MUST put a stop to Kindergartners sexually molesting preschoolers by coercing them into playing, "Show Me Yours & I'll Show You Mine".
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:10 PM EST
Akagi - Correct
RE: Prudes, I wrote:

"Even as recently as 1948, however, it was SO complicated..."


That should have been, "Even as recently as 1948, however, it was NOT SO terribly complicated..."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:10 PM EST
plain cases of no religion
For swifties like Akagi, others like him who tell us PRUDES flagrant porn's no big deal:

It's not the prude, nor even the girls. The boys around our neighborhoods can't be expected to be prudish. Only they SHOULD BE.

It's parents who never go to church. Those same parents who came from broken families; and weren't taught about God. Weren't interested in prayers at any time of the day. Because, who is there up there, to hear any prayers?

They grow up believing what movies tell them. Dirty movies, and movies in which religion is only the warped mind of phony Christian mutants from the Prude Planet, who kidnap luscious girls and strip them naked on the rack, being exorcised! And the films about Da Vinci codes, mindless Inquisitors, etc.,

They never once prayed as little kids. They don't believe in God. Do they say grace at table? They say Fu-ck at table, to one another. They're given birth control pills.

I grew up in a Catholic home where the role model, not just to my sisters, but even my mother into old age, was the Blessed Virgin Mary. A VIRGIN, Akagi!!! Were we prudes, or what?

Yet; we always had peace of mind and happiness in our home; despite being awfully poor. There was no jealousy. No criminal stage for myself or my two brothers. We never smoked pot. What was the main reason? Yes, our parents were strict. But mainly, we were taught about GOD, who His saints are, why we should love Him. The meaning of virtue and honesty.

Without religious faith, this society will go totally corrupt and destroy us all.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:15 PM EST
kids with no religion --concluded

To conclude,

We're already unwary victims of an atrocious and godless society. When God is cast out, modern society makes us appreciate things like pornographic texting. Society in which teenie whores are tattooed in the region of their tail-bones, to keep a boyfriend in heat like a stud dog. Guys think it's great!

Where did they pick all of this up? Not praying in the morning when they woke to a new day. Not praying at bedtime. Not going to church on Sundays. If you're grounded in the faith and trained in morality, you can stand up against temptations and porn and dirty movies. God Himself will protect us from adversity & self-destruction.

If not; you're easy prey to those who peddle porn; you believe in gay marriage, dislike "organised religion," and never miss a dirty movie. Religion makes all the difference, especially growing up in America.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 3:20 PM EST
Liberty
It was not uncommon in the South after "the Civil War" for girls as young as 13 to marry men in their 40s--all with the approval of their parents. Today if you tried that, you and the parents would end up in prison.

Not that I am saying 13 year olds should marry 45 year olds, but if some 30 or 40 year old and teenager want to get together I think the correct sentence isn't jail but to force the man to marry her. But having to live with one may indeed by a violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

"Like Stacey said and then I said like no way and then she said yes way and I said totally shut up..."

Insanity is soon to follow the poor man that must face that and as the saying goes--sooner or later you are going to have to talk to them and sex can only take up so many minutes of the day.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 4:24 PM EST
dreadnaught
"Not going to church on Sundays. If you're grounded in the faith and trained in morality, you can stand up against temptations and porn and dirty movies."

Don't make me laugh. There is much truth in the stereotype of the "preacher's daughter."

And exactly which God are we talking about? Seems there is a good degree of debate about who this God person is anyway (to paraphrase Douglas Adams).

Was the Virgin Mary a virgin? I'd say that is just as big a fairy tale as many other stories in the Bible. How did she get pregnant? Artificial Insemination? Sounds like the stories you find in Greek mythology about Zeus and his activities. Let's see a woman pull that story on her husband now--honey, I know we've never had sex, but I'm pregnant--but I'm not cheating on you, it was done by God. Tell me how that works out.

Wasn't it Jewish custom to consummate the marriage on the wedding night? So how was she a virgin? ALso, since in general people married at about the time of sexual maturity, don't you think it is asking a bit much for people to live like nuns and priests (the ones not raping little boys) for a decade or more after sexual maturity?

Plenty of criminal Catholics in the history of the US or did the history of the 19th century and early 20th century in the US escape you--plenty of Irish and Italian gangs.

As a member of a organized religion, I don't dislike them--just the ones that try to convert and force their viewsd on everyone--in short the monotheistic ones. Dirty movies? Depends on your standard--Is Se Jie dirty?

Think the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all actually. There shouldn't be any state sanctioned marriages. If you want to have a ceremony at a church or claim this person is your spouse, great.



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 4:42 PM EST
Akagi, please
If you don't know about the immaculate conception don't try to debate it. If you don't know why there are over a billion Judeo-Christians then don't embarass yourself with ridiculous questions and assumptions. I'm not a perfect Christian but I try to respect everyone hoping to get the golden rule applied to me. Christopher Hitchens was on Prager today saying the golden rule was inherent in every human. Balony! Prager, and I agree, says that it must be taught. If Christianity is a hoax then you and I will not know that until we no longer matter in this world. Why can't we leave it at that?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 4:47 PM EST
Oh and Akagi
Don't forget the Supreme Court says that 17 yr old heinous murderers don't know what they're doing therefore should not be put to death.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:06 PM EST
Indy
About 2 billion actually, but that means over 4 billion (67%) don't share that view though. Since I am one of the 67% I'm calling BS on the virgin birth thing and I may indeed be wrong, but I just as well could be right. Even if a majority did agree with your view, it still wouldn't per se make your view correct. A majority at one time though the earth was the center of the universe and that the earth was a mere 6,000 years old--turns out they were wrong on those points. As for the Judeo part? They don't agree with you either.

I agree that civilized behavior must be taught, but that is hardly a unique Christian concept nor is the Golden rule--Confucius was teaching that during the Spring and Autumn Period some five centuries before Christ. It is a slight difference in Confucian thought it is "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." The Christian Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" would be seen as quite presumptuous--what do you know of the desire of others?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:17 PM EST
Twelve Years in Prison...
...for getting a photo taken by a 17 year old girl of her own body? I'm not sure that's a fitting sentence.

It would be different if this was a 13 year old, or if she had been photographed against her will. I mean, 17 is legal in several states and in most Western nations. Is something magical going to happen in the next few months before she turns 18 that makes all the difference?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:33 PM EST
Indy
Actually Indy the Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons (2005) that execution of prisoners for capital crimes comitted as a 17-year old was an unconstitutional violation of the 8th's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment using the doctrime of "evolving standards of decency." It ruled that they lacked maturity and were reckless--not that they didn't know what they were doing only that they were irresponsible. It already ruled in 1988 in Thompson v. Oklahoma that execution of those under 16 were a violation of the 8th and used the same reasoning as in Simmons "evolving standards of decency..." The case was Oklahoma trying to execute a person who was 15 at the time of the murder. Stanford v. Kentucky a year later set the legal grounding for execution of those 16 and 17, but not under. And Simmons banned it for all under 18.

For disclosure, as a firm believer in state rights, I oppose the reasoning in all three cases and think the states should be able to set the age limit for execution (if they desire to have them). As well as to decide who gets executed thus I opposed the reasoning in Kennedy v. LA or Coker v. GA (Kennedy was executions of child rapists which the court struck down and Coker executions of those that raped adults--also struck down).



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:44 PM EST
Agaki said, " I oppose the reasoning...
...in all three cases and think the states should be able to set the age limit for execution."

I could go along with this, so long as the age when a person can be legally executed is the same age that they can vote, drink, buy a gun, et cetera. In other words, if you can be executed...you need to be a legal adult.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:47 PM EST
Akagi even in uptight
America before the 1920's really the 1940's nudity was a lot more common than people think today. Remember before 1920 many generation lived in the house and the houses were much smaller than today. Bothers and sister often shared bedrooms into their late teens, when they got married. Bathing was done in a tub in the middle of the kichen with other family member in several stages of getting dressed and undress for their turn at the tub.

Remember the old movie Tarzan and his mate? Made in 1934 Maureen O'Sullivan's tiny two piece suit didn't rise an eye brow nor did the nude swimming scene.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:50 PM EST
Richard said, "Bothers and sisters...
...often shared bedrooms into their late teens, when they got married."

Brothers and sisters were getting married?! Good grief!

;-)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:54 PM EST
Akagi please
Christianity isn't against sex any more than its against drinking or eating. Its against the excess in life sex, eating, drinking spending etc. Now some people will try and tell you that any engagement in certain activities is excessive but that is their personal opinion not Christian teaching.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 5:57 PM EST
Donovan only
in places like LA or San Franisco or other neo-liberal enclaves.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:01 PM EST
Relax Richard,
I was just having some fun. No need to get all ornery.

As long as you're in the mood to do some Christian apologetics, could you explain to me why God needed the whole Jesus scenario to forgive the world of sin? It seems like a whole lot of convoluted and painful machinations to go through, rather than just...you know, forgiving the world of sin. He's God, right? Doesn't that make him all powerful or something?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:01 PM EST
Akagi
Thanks for the ruling information. You missed my point on the Christianity thing. What I was saying was don't broadbrush Christians with the "preacher's daughter" or for that matter Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, Jim Jones, David Koresh or assorted Catholic priests. Especially encompassing that many people. I don't American Christians are attempting to subjugate the world but merely trying to fulfill missionary goals. Get the word out along with help to solidify the teachings. We are all only human and I doubt we could convert billions of Hindus, Chinese or Muslims. By the same token we should be left alone on the home front. If they allow prayer rugs in some states than the feds should get out of schools elswhere as well. And the presumption of the golden rule I used in terms of respect. Is that something you would object to?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:06 PM EST
DON'T BLAME CHRISTIANS
HOW CAN CHRISTIANS GET BLAMED FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECT OF YOUR BODY. SHOULD NOT THEIR BE PROTECTION OF CHILDERN? HOW COME WHEN A CHILD CLAIM AN ADULT DID THEM SOMETHING WRONG THE CHILD IS ACCUSED OF BEING EVIL? WHY ARE VICTIMS ATTACKED BY HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS? DON'T BLAME CHRISTIANS FOR NOT COMPROMISING THEIR ETHICS TO SAVE THE LIVES OF CHILDERN. DNA TEST SHOULD BE DONE ON ALL VICTIMS TO SEE HAVE THEY HAD ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THEM AT FIRST. THEN TEST TO SEE IS THEIR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THE STORY OF THE VICTIM. LETTING YEARS GO BY AND THEIR EXIST CONFIRMABLE EVIDENCE THEIR IS NO REASON TO APOLOGIZE, NOR CLAIM YOUR ACTIONS WAS ANYTHING BUT THE WORK OF THE DEVIL. A CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS LEADER NOT PROTECTING CHILDERN ARE THE WORKERS OF THE DEVIL ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:13 PM EST
Donovan
I didn't say a state should, but they should be able to if they wish. Execution for state crimes should be a matter for the states, not the Federal government. But using your standard then states shouldn't be able to execute until 21 since that is the legal drinking age--which was also imposed on the states by the Imperial Federal Government.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:16 PM EST
Agaki,
I'd prefer to lower the drinking age rather than vice versa, but that's the basic idea.

I'd actually prefer to outlaw capital punishment altogether, but this is America, and we Americans sure do seem to love our executions.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:40 PM EST
wow....
Ms. Gallagher - you are so out of touch its rather amusing. I realize that things were done slightly different in your youth, with the Crusades and all, but guess what- Teens like sex - I know, its hard to imagine.

The fact that you are inferring that all of these girls are being "made" to do this by the bad, evil, icky boys is perposterous. Your my dear author are a twit. I really hate to break it to you, but the Girls like sex too. And the girls are doing this many times willingly, then AFTERWARDS it was the bad icky boys that made them do it.

Teens have sex - we were doing it when i was in high school in the early 90's and they are still doing it. I understand your offense to this, being a hideous old hag - but before you go bashing the male sex, maybe you should catch up on the times. You can access this crazy thing called the internet to research. Just a suggestion.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 46
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:41 PM EST
Indy
" We are all only human and I doubt we could convert billions of Hindus, Chinese..."

Last time that was tried things didn't work out too well. Missionary work in China lead to the very anti-Western Yihetuan (better known as the Boxers) and the Boxer Rebellion. Some 260 years before in Japan you had basically a similar event. See the Shimabara Rebellion during the Edo Period.

Patrick:

Teens aren't children and many are sexual aggressive animals they will spread their legs for anything that moves and some things that don't. They aren't all sweet and innocent.

Can we turn off the caps lock please. Or do you like to go through life shouting all the time?

"HOW CAN CHRISTIANS GET BLAMED FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECT OF YOUR BODY. SHOULD NOT THEIR BE PROTECTION OF CHILDERN?"

Children yes, but turning teens into felons for hi-tech flashing? No. And it is "there" not "their."

"HOW COME WHEN A CHILD CLAIM AN ADULT DID THEM SOMETHING WRONG THE CHILD IS ACCUSED OF BEING EVIL? WHY ARE VICTIMS ATTACKED BY HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS?"

Because sometimes it is the adult that is the real victim. What human rights organizations? Like to cite us a case?

"DON'T BLAME CHRISTIANS FOR NOT COMPROMISING THEIR ETHICS TO SAVE THE LIVES OF CHILDERN."

Relevance to the above thread.

"DNA TEST SHOULD BE DONE ON ALL VICTIMS TO SEE HAVE THEY HAD ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THEM AT FIRST. "

Evidence of sex is not evidence of who was the aggressor and who was the target.

How old are you? What grade did you finally decide that school was enough? 3rd? Can you please tell us what school district you were in so we can all avoid it. Perhaps a lawsuit against it may be in order--malpractice.

Or are you just a plant to make Christian conservatives look stupid and uneducated?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 47
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:43 PM EST
Because he didn't give
forgiveness it has to be earned. And for the same reason you don't if your a good parent give everthing to your child. The old saying is true if you love your child don't make life to easy for them. You only value what youve really had to work for and earn. Which as you can see from Herr obama statements is why he places so little value of the office of the president.

Oh and the reply was a joke about bother and sister was a joke since libs love to point at places like WV for that type of thing I thought I'd just turn it around. After all when you point a finger at someone remember three are pointed back at you. The three fold law in effect.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 48
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:49 PM EST
Keith
Get someone to read your responses for this crazy thing called rationality.Just a suggestion.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 49
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 6:52 PM EST
Our Kenyan-born FDR WANNABE
Remember ...

Dumbomba was a Kenayn-born citizen of Great Britain, he was an adopted Indonesian citizen, he has a Muslim world view from his father's heritage, and was given MARXIST indoctrination at an early age in Hawaii ...

He's also pissed off at America in general and White people in particular because his father abandoned him and left him to fend for himself, and to be raised by his "typical white racist grandmother", in a WHITE WORLD ...

Because of his Kenayn heritage, where his brother lives on about $0.02 a day, he is comfortable with other people lving in poverty, although he excludes himself from that fate because he thinks he is special ...

Therefore in his mind if YOU have a hut, a skinny chicken, and a pair of sandals ...

YOU ARE RICH!

All you need to know about B-Hussein-O is contained in this quote from Karl Marx - Obama's idol:

“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
— Karl Marx, 1867, Das Kapital


ARE YOU SORRY YET THAT YOU GAVE THE REIGNS OF POWER TO A MARXIST-PIG?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 50
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 7:00 PM EST
USPatriot

"Dumbomba was a Kenayn-born citizen of Great Britain, he was an adopted Indonesian citizen."

No proof he was born in Indonesia and he'd be a citizen of the British Empire if he were which is not the same as being a citizen of the UK--rights of residency and all that.

Obama was never adopted nor did he ever have Indonesian citizenship. In fact, the 1958 Indonesian Naturalization Law would have made such impossible for him while he was there.

And this is Germane to this column in what way?

No doubt you have SPAMMED every thread on TH today with this garbage.





Flag as Offensive

Reply # 51
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 7:01 PM EST
USPatriot56,
What color is the sky in your world?

When you start creating your own reality rather than accept the one you actually live in, you might have a problem.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 52
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 7:15 PM EST
Correction
Meant no proof he was born in Kenya.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 53
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 7:15 PM EST
Esteban
Teenagers are sexual beings. This has been true since the beginning of time.

Since we infantilize our kids these days by protecting them from even the slightest difficulty or frustration, why is it any surprise that they do stupid and destructive things without the slightest idea of the consequences?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 54
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 7:36 PM EST
USPatriot
A few other things. He is no Marxist, he doesn't hate white people nor the US. I didn't vote for Obama or McCain, but he can't be any worse than W. He'll be re-elected in a real landslide this time as the economy will be humming along in 2012 (recovery starts in 2010). They'll replay the same type of ads that RWR did in 1980 and 1984 (are you better now than you were...). Thge answer in 1980 was no, the answer in 1984 was yes and the result Reagan landslides.

Repeat in 2012. And 2016 could easily be a repeat of 1988. The GOP may be out of power for a long long time. Get used to it. Of course the party I happen to like will be out of power itself I am afraid for a long time too. Tsia Ying-Wen if she is the nominee in 2012 has no more chance against Ma than whoever the GOP runs against Obama. And after Ma, it probably be Hua Lung-bin (Hua Pei-Tsun's little boy).

Dark days for Pan-Green.



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 55
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 7:43 PM EST
Tea Party said
"Jerry..these kids have been raised in an amoral
world, and when responsible parents try to
stop it, they are demonized."

Yesterday, the results of a study based on phone bills that record charges for downloaded porn found that the heaviest users of porn are in the southeastern red states.

You know, the states that love Sarah Palin and Joe the Plunber, Christianity, straights and hate atheists, gays, uppity women, black presidents, and who talk like tea party, clucking over the failure of non-christian amorality in an evil world.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 56
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:00 PM EST
Ethan
Have a link or a source for your cited study?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 57
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:04 PM EST
Akagi reply #58
Hey, can I borrow your crystal ball?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 58
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:11 PM EST
Ethan
Would be nice to have a source not that I'd be suprised. There was a UGA study a few years ago that showed that those most vocal against homosexuals were most likely to be aroused by homosexual erotic images thus indicating repressed homosexual desires.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 59
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:12 PM EST
FIRST, Keep Fox"NEWS" PERVS OUT!
Aaron Bruns had already been busted for THOUSANDS of pornographic images stored on his pc, including many explicitly sexual photos of children, which he was trading via internet chat rooms.

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1999/apr/04-02-99/news/news6 .html

NOW thanks to the FBI, Aaron Bruns, a producer in the Fox News Channel Washington, D.C. bureau and who covered Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign , has been arrested and charged AGAIN with possession of child pornography.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0210093foxn ews1.html

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/fnc_producer_aaron_ bruns_arrested_108291.asp?c=rss
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 60
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:14 PM EST
I see stuff like this often
Its a confluence of factors:

* The overall erosion of self-preservation and and senses of propriety.

* Diminished among some willingness to delay gratification and do the harder work of developing the other parts of the self (academics, athletics, vocational, etc...)

* The sexualization of children at increasingly younger ages.

* The unwillingness/inability of many adults to lead, guide, and teach children with moral clarity (NOT rigidity- clarity).

* The indulgence of base human nature at many levels of society.

* We have become a culure that worships feelings as the ultimate arbiters of all decisions. Feelings of being desired and desiring are gratifying and hard to resist since many do not practice resistance to desires as a rule.

The increased availability porn is symptomatic of the ever-escalating self-indulgence among the populace. Throw in kids with hand-held photography equipment, and you've got crotch-on-the-spot.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 61
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:14 PM EST
Scott said
Ethan
Have a link or a source for your cited study?
No need to ask, of course he doesn't.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 62
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:16 PM EST
There's some feedback from Akagi
I tested the waters:

"Not going to church on Sundays. If you're grounded in the faith and trained in morality, you can stand up against temptations and porn and dirty movies."

The first cretin came forward. Akagi speaks!

"Don't make me laugh. There is much truth in the stereotype of the "preacher's daughter."

I think he's challenging, from his ivory tower--in Hong Kong.

"Virgin Mary a virgin?"

No--cretino-san. A virgin on grounds of not having had sex; in this case a holy woman, chosen of --God.

Akagi responds, "just as big a fairy tale as many other stories in the Bible."

You mean made up?
akagi-- Dirty MOVIES are made up. What motive would the people of God think of; for lying about Mary--when God says lying (false witness) is a sin; leading to damnation? You really should sober up.

"How did she get pregnant? Artificial Insemination?"

If you ask a serious question, a serious answer for you, Mr. Moto--

Mary accepted the word from an angel of the Lord. Without any man good or bad; her baby (Jesus) came to her womb and took on human flesh. Jesus is GOD. For God, nothing is impossible; despite your unbelief.

Just think: NEVER was God put off because a pipsqueak on the ground said "Wait a minute," Not you or me, either.

"Sounds like the stories you find in Greek mythology about Zeus and his activities."

Maybe. You sound like a fisherman pretending he caught a whopper, who is going hungry tonight. He'll eat some plastic wrap and tell himself it's Sushi.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 63
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:16 PM EST
Scott
Warren Buffet predicts the economy to recover this year with housing to recover in 2011. All the economist forecast I have seen show a recovery in 2009 or 2010. You have anything different? If that is so, you like to show me how Obama loses in 2012? Yes, I suppose Al Qaeda gets a nuke and destroys NYC and there is a great depression--sure and that is about as likely as a giant earthquake that makes SF fall into the sea--possible but not likely.

2012 Obama wins for sure. 2016 still up for grabs, but my bet would be on the DP.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 64
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:25 PM EST
Akagi
Didn't Buffet just admit to being majorly wrong on some of his predictions about the onset of the recession?
Not being antagonistic here. I just think it's way to early to make that kind of prediction.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 65
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:26 PM EST
By Jupiter
Her husband had problems for a while, until God sent him word Mary was carrying the Savior promised Israel for thousands of years. (God keeps every promise.) Joseph took God's word for this; Jesus became his foster son. We hope you don't object, Agaki.

"Wasn't it Jewish custom to consummate the marriage on the wedding night? So how was she a virgin?"

Why are you pushing Jewish custom? Are you perchance fiddling on the roof? GOD tells the world what's what-- NOT custom.

". . . exactly which God are we talking about? Seems there is a good degree of debate about who this God person is anyway (to paraphrase Douglas Adams)"

Which one do you think Christians mean, my bright friend?

The God who is FATHER to His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. God who is no myth; but the only God who ever existed, and will exist always. (Jupiter has never existed, FYI--)

Almighty God Our Father has no planet named after Him; Jupiter has. God created Jupiter, so-- connect all your dots. He's capable of squeezing your mini-brain and sending it to Jupiter; where you can believe or not; as you please.


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 66
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 8:29 PM EST
Dreadnaught,
Your tale of myth and fantasy is just as likely to be true as any other religion. In fact, your god is just as likely to exist as is Zeus, Hera, Thor, Odin, Jupiter, Poseidon, Ra, and/or Apophis.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 67
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 9:01 PM EST
dreadnaught
How do you know that Jupiter (aka Zeus) never has? How do you know YOUR God is the REAL God. As Confucius said "wei zhi sheng, yan zhi si?" If you yet do not know about life, how can you know about death? The Analects 11:11.

Xiang Gang? Not me. But I am reading Noble House--sounds like it would have been a great place to do business in the 1960s if you were a man of means. But me no Tai Pan (Da Ban).



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 68
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 10:26 PM EST
Just The Facts
If pictures of your daughter naked are on every computer in the nation is that something for her to be proud? There seems to be a thought that anything goes, yes it goes a long way.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 69
Date: Mar 3, 2009 - 10:38 PM EST
Akagi I'd suggest
looking at 1936 and 1940 instead of 1980 and 1984. Herr obama plan is likely to do the same thing FDR's did turn the a recession into a major depression. I think be 2012 we'll see national unemployment around 20 to 25 percent. with either massive inflation or worst major deflation. Now if Heff obama can fool the majority of fools that the depression would have been a lot worst without him like FDR did he will be re-elected if the people aren't fooled by Herr obama PR and media lackies he'll lose worst that the idiot carter did.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 70
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 12:03 AM EST
Is The Answer Arresting Students?
I think it depends on the severity of the issue. I thought the major problem with child pornography was that it was also intertwined with child sex trafficking, which I think should take top priority over this. We are already using federal tax dollars to pay for TV ads warning teens about the dangers of posting their own personal photos or information. I believe that would solve part of the problem, even though it could be done better within the private sector and not using tax money.

The best idea I can think of is that the enforcement on our child abuse laws should be amped up. It would be a better deterrent for teens to see actual child pornographers and child-slave traffickers getting their comeuppance by being arrested and having the book thrown at them to the fullest extent of the law.

We also need to address the issue of whether alleged forms of child pornography where no child abuse is involved whatsoever is also a top priority. By that, I mean forms stipulated in the clauses on pandering child porn, which is essentially a misleading title that leads to some pornographic video that has no child present whatsoever or no pornographic material at all. Then there's virtual child porn, which could be computer-generated without any reference to actual child abuse whatsoever, hand-drawn cartoon porn, or maybe to an extent, the comic strip "Love Is", usually ran in the Classifieds section of most newspapers. That could be construed as child pornography since the feature is about two naked eight year-olds who are married.

At this point, the laws on child porn seem vague to say the most. It looks like some reforms in the law enforcement and better targetting of who we should be after are needed in order to fully protect our children everywhere.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 71
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 5:47 AM EST
RE AKAGI
There are numerous levels of profound foolishness in your attitude. For starters, prudence is a virtue, not a vice. Secondly, the pervasiveness of evil behavior, currently or historically, never justifies anything. Third, life is not sociologically predetermined. When people honor social sanctions, it is not necessarily because they are honoring something they’ve contrived. Human dignity and a capacity to honor human dignity are innate qualities of the human condition that are easily transgressed by willful moral cowardice. I feel sorry for any young person whom you would be in a position to influence.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 72
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 8:11 AM EST
Kids today have no boundaries
Today's children have been watching cable TV, playing violent video games and accessing porn for their entire lives. This is what happens when parents use electronic babysitters to amuse the children they don't have time to raise because they are working all the time to finance their lifestyle and pay the onerous taxes that are crushing all of us. The idiots running this country think that we are an unlimited supply of money and care nothing about their fellow humans--so now we have kids that are doing this because they are totally unsupervised and think anything goes because their absentee parents are always working!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 73
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 9:31 AM EST
Naked Pictures
We're going off track with some of our observations and comments. Question: Do we want our children to be jailed and listed as a sexual predator in these situations? I would say NO. Having a good self-image and having parents all sound good, even if one had both parents nowadays, but the sad truth is, both parents probably work and few families actually sit down to enjoy a meal together without distractions. The art of family conversation is a thing of the past. The liberal left has destroyed religion so what moral compass is left? None. So, we're left with modern technology and the fact that kids can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that their miscues today may live on and on thru Internet eternity. Pre-teens and teenagers proably need sex education today more than ever and an understanding of what porn is and why it exists. Nothing wrong with being naked but imagination is becoming a thing of the past as we submit to a visual world.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 74
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:10 AM EST
Child Pornographer
Shouldn't parents be held responsible at some level for this behavior?
And are these photos real "porn" or just nudies? Either way, to post pictures like that is real foolish and may blemish if not ruin lives.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 75
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:13 AM EST
The problem
is the same one here as we are facing with the economy a total lack of anything close to commonsense. A few years ago a woman was arrested for child pron her crime? Sending a picture of her son nude on a rug to we mother. The type of picture we all hated as teens our parents showing around and going wasn't he/she just so cute. Because she mistyped her mother email and the picture went to a stranger she is now considered a sexual predator.

A little common sense would go a long way to solving this problem and most of our others. Saddly common sense has seemed to been outlawed by the new admin and their modern American liberal (aka fascist) supporters.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 76
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:14 AM EST
Above All
It is about kids not caring what others think and how others feel about them.

It is the same pathology behind the thief, the adulterer, and the murderer.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 77
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:24 AM EST
Mohammed Atta
"When God is cast out, modern society makes us appreciate things like pornographic texting. "
Mohammed Atta did not cast God out of his life.

Somehow I think pornographic texting does far less harm than flying airplanes into buildings.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 78
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:33 AM EST
Sexting and kids
Good intentioned laws to track and monitor true sexual predators are being twisted to give the modern day version of the "scarlet letter" to anyone who the "moral enforcers" in this nation feel deserve it.

As a father I don't care for the idea of my daughter or sons sending pornographic pictures of themselves to others, but I don't want them branded for life as sexual predators if they make an error in judgement and engage in an activity like this with other underage peers.

Each case should be evaluated independently.

The cases of minors sexting with minors where both parties are willing participants then they should NOT face adult porn or sex offence charges, but they should be punished for inappropriate behavior.

In cases where minors are convinced or or badgered into sending explicit pictures by other minors then the person who did the convincing should face charges of contributing to the delinquency of or exploitation of a minor.

In cases where one party is an adult, and the adult is a willing participant or is the instigator then that is when the sexual predator laws should come into play.

Every generation has had it's version of a sexual exploration by teens and young adults. Sexting is this generations version. It is not THE problem, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem; the rampant lack of self esteem, self respect, and a positive self image.

I will avoid the religious debate above, but I will say that parents of kids who do this need to look at themselves and ask; "Where did I fail to teach my daughter/son the values they need to avoid behavior like this?"
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 79
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:36 AM EST
Where is the felony part again?
A lovestruck teen sends a not fully clothed photo to an adult. The adult is the porno fiend-threat to society scumbag felon facing prison time? If they sell it on a website maybe. Have you people lost your minds? I really hope this happens to you, you self righteous pompous idiot.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 80
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:41 AM EST
red states are biggest porn users, link
"New evidence suggests that people who live in states that laud morality may also be the most lascivious.

A study by Benjamin Edelman, an assistant professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, titled “Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?” and published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that subscriptions to online pornography sites are “more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality.”


I

Journal of Economic Perspectives, “Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?”
Here are some of the report’s findings:

1. In regions where more people report regularly attending religious services, overall subscription rates are not statistically signi?cantly different from subscriptions elsewhere.

part 2 below
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 81
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:41 AM EST
part two - rest of story
2. Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality (regression results on ?le with the author). In the 27 states where “defense of marriage” amendments have been adopted (making same-sex marriage, and/or civil unions unconstitutional), subscriptions to this adult entertainment service are weakly more prevalent than in other states ( p 0.096). In such states, there were 0.2 more subscribers to this adult web site per thousand broadband households, 11 percent more than in other states.

3. In states where more people agree that “Even today miracles are performed by the power of God” and “I never doubt the existence of God,” there are more subscriptions to this service.

4. Subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where more people agree that “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage” and “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behavior.”

5. Tancer (2008), ?nds that adult escort sites are more popular in “blue” states that voted for Gore in 2004, while visitors from the “red” states that voted for Bush in 2004 are more likely to visit wife-swapping sites, adult webcams, and sites about voyeurism.

An article about the study on the NewScientist Web site also makes this observation:

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Why am I not surprised?

This article, plus a statistical comparative table can be found on http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/red-light-states/ ?scp=1&sq=pornography%20use%20by%20state&st=cse or, just go to the NYTimes archives and enter "pornography use by state".

Have fun.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 82
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:48 AM EST
Soliton
Ive read my post - the rational is fine. The author is essentially man bashing - and just showing how out of touch with reality she is. I didnt say ALL girls do this willingly, or that every boy was innocent- but i definately thing that MOST girls very happily do this, then regret it after the fact. The author comes across as a jealous old hag.

Please point out where my rational is off in your opinion. And please, dont use the bible or religion as your basis - because not everyone is Christian - there are other beliefs out there.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 83
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 11:34 AM EST
I asked a couple of girls
I asked a couple of 15 year old girls about this. Both stated that they couldn't see any problem with doing this. "After all, the boys aren't actually seeing ME." "What do you mean, this is child porn? I'm taking a picture of ME!" One even showed me a couple of pictures of herself and a friend taking pictures of each other wearing bras and saw nothing wrong with it. They were just being sexy!

How do you legislate this? You can't. It requires a change in attitude.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 84
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 11:48 AM EST
What To Do When You've Lost Control
Probably the best thing to do is get out of the way. Teenagers in the 70's streaked and that is about as obscene as anything. They were not prosecuted and now they are the parents of these kids.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 85
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 12:16 PM EST
ACLU trying to legalize it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 86
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 12:18 PM EST
Akaqi Makes Sense
(First Time For Everything I Guess)

Juvenile exhibitionism by adolescents has always
been part of growing up.

What is new seems to be the eagerness of certain authorities to concoct "child pornography" cases out of thin air. I first noticed this back in the mid to late 1980s
when some Traci Lord images were declared
to be kiddy porn. While she was underage,
her 38 D Cup assets hardly appealed to pedophiles.

Of course, this was in San Francisco, so maybe
they can be excused for a lack of hetrosexual
understanding.


And of course, fixating on what Maggie is talking about may well provide cover for those who really need to be put away.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 87
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 12:40 PM EST
Traci was quite a story
and not all was what we were led to believe. We were led to believe that Nora Louise Kuzma (aka "Traci Lords") was a naif, an innocent victim. She SHOPPED her naked tush all over Christendom for a long time. She was the Centerfold in Penthouse in the famous "Vanessa Williams" issue but nobody remembered because of the uproar over Vanessa.

She turned 16 in May of 1984. The issue was printed in September BUT there is a HUGE lag time in publication so she was certainly no more than FIFTEEN when she SENT IN HER OWN POLAROIDS to Guccione for consideration. Her mom was her agent and producer!! The first flicks with her in them would date back to late 1983 or early 1984 BEFORE she was even 16!!

She set the whole thing up with falsified ID. When she turned 18 and had made over $500k in the skin trade she blew the whistle ON HERSELF and got her videos snatched off the shelves thus "erasing" her past so she could surface 2 years later in a Roger Corman sci-fi flick and later on TV having attend the Strasberg Acting school.

After this there were several others underaged porn stars but nobody cares anymore. Shannon Eaves (aka "Nikki Charm") use a fake ID to get Jim South to start her off and in '88 when she turned 18 SUED HIM for using a minor in porn flicks and collected $300k. I hear she's now a feature at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, married with kids. Go figure the porn biz.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 88
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 12:49 PM EST
RE: 45caliber
"What do you mean, this is child porn?"

>>

No. This is not "child porn". These stories describe adolescents passing about lurid photos of themselves.

Hint: They ceased to be children when they reached adolescence. They are no longer children. Ergo, it is NOT child pornography.

We can debate about whether or not it is appropriate or ought to be criminal, but let's at least apply the appropriate terms.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 89
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 12:54 PM EST
zinger by dbz77

dbz in CA:

"Mohammed Atta did not cast God out of his life."

Sorry; He did. MA worked for the devil, as any sensible person knows. Al Qaeda works for the devil; since theirs is misplaced faith. Hollywood often works for the devil, if we'll just open our eyes.

"Somehow I think pornographic texting does far less harm than flying airplanes into buildings."

Yeah; "somehow" --and it never enters your feeble mind; chastizements and suffering are ordinarily sent by God; to those who scorn Him. In other words, reap as you sow-- What's happening to the children today we reap from decades-long pagan hedonism and criminal irresponsibility.

In a great parable we're told a related story (by Christ)--
The Landowner's servant asked him; "Weeds keep growing in the field where you planted good seed. Why?" (I paraphrase for brevity)

The Landowner said, "An enemy has done this." Then he was asked;

"Shall we pull those weeds out of your field, Master?"

He replied; "No, lest in pulling them, you should harm the wheat. Leave them until harvesting. We'll take the wheat then, all into my barns. We'll separate the weeds and cast them in bundles, on the fire."

We see those weeds now; things like abortions, drugs and porn. You've seen it; rampant sexual indulgence and obscenity. DEALERS/PLAYERS.

But God the Landowner hasn't been forgetting that harvest. It's coming.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 90
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:12 PM EST
Scott & Glen
Regarding my post about Red States being the biggest consumers of on line porn, I posted my reference links above.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 91
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:31 PM EST
to akagi
"How do you know that Jupiter (aka Zeus) never has? How do you know YOUR God is the REAL God."

Plenty of statues still exist, of him. Cecilia, virgin martyr, said it well:
(forget about Confucius)

She told the Roman judges, "Whoever these gods are whom you want ME to worship, they must have affected your eyesight. Because you see gods, I see stone. God is in heaven, where I'm going. He alone may we worship."

"But I am reading Noble House--sounds like it would have been a great place to do business in the 1960s if you were a man of means. But me no Tai Pan (Da Ban).

Fine; I read The House of Nomura years ago. You can be sure I admire Japanese men of good will. The other night we watched a movie classic: Ikiru. The same director who made Kagemusha; in partnership with George Lucas.

I was pleased to discover that Oda Nobunaga was a convert to Catholicism in that story. I sure wish I knew what his words mean, when he sings in one of the final scenes. He was spell-binding.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 92
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:47 PM EST
To All Conservative Bloggers
Open invitation to a great conservative blog website where honest debates on the issues is always welcomed. Stop by for a visit and sit a spell. It is my favorite conservative site and we are generally civil and respectfully to one another opinions and enjoy civil debates on all the current issues. The web address is http://noleftturnz.wordpress.com/
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 93
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 2:47 PM EST
Ethan-response
Ethan,
First, the correlations in your link are far too weak to prove what you are attempting to prove.

Correlation does not equal causation. It could be that social conservatives are all a bunch of hypocrites running off to wife-swap sites and adult webcams in the privacy of their own homes or it could be that the liberals living in conservative areas find it necessary to use the internet to find kindred spirits while liberals in liberal areas do not need the internet because they are surrounded.

More to the point, so what? Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right and social conservatives are all hypocrites this topic is about kids.

Most people would agree that hiding things from your kids or telling your kids not to do things that you do isn't wrong. A parent who smokes and drinks does not lose the right to tell their kids not to smoke and drink.

The point of this discussion is about social norms that kids learn from society. Those norms do not have to be rigorously adhered to in order to be passed on.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 94
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 3:33 PM EST
RE: Liberty is the basis
"... Those norms do not have to be rigorously adhered to in order to be passed on."

>>

By definition "social norms" are applied IN PRACTICE. IF some "norm" is NOT rigorously ahered to then it is NOT applied [enough] in [general] practice. Thus, if SOCIETY does not rigorously adhere to certain "norms" then they are NOT "social norms".

Values are only effectively passed on by example &/or learned from experience. "Do as I say, not as I do," is simply NOT effective, and smart people quickly pick up on the intellectual contradiction between someone telling them NOT to do something that they DO themselves.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 95
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 3:54 PM EST
Liberty
I realize you took the correlation/connection argument right off the site that reported the story, but it doesn't hold water. The study is not a correlation and it unlikely that anybody pays for computer porn just to talk to somebody.

Also, my citing this study was a response to a particular post about the crash of American morality.

Last, the sanctimonious judgements shown by this columnist as well as many posters (I presume they are adults) indeed raise the question of hypocrasy - not necessarily conscious hypocrasy, but definitely a form of ideological aphasia and cognitive dissonance.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 96
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 4:34 PM EST
ethan from Il

Off course Conservatives love sex. Don't act so suprised. Its human nature.

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is Liberals want the government to pay for abortions, Conservatives do not. Liberals want the government to pay for condoms, conservatives do not. Liberals want the goverment to pay for sex change operations, Conservatives do not. Liberals don't want the Government to help keep porn out of the hands of children, Conservatives believe government has a role in protecting children.

So Clearly Liberals beleive the Government should play an active role in people's sexuality. Conservatives do not.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 97
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 4:51 PM EST
Ethan #96
"I realize you took the correlation/connection argument right off the site that reported the story, but it doesn't hold water. The study is not a correlation and it unlikely that anybody pays for computer porn just to talk to somebody."

My point was that there correlation does not equal causation and that even if it did there isn't enough correlation here to prove anything.

Beyond that, how is it "unlikely that anybody pays for computer porn just to talk to somebody."?

"Also, my citing this study was a response to a particular post about the crash of American morality."

Yes, and that is the point. Somehow kids got the idea that this was a good thing to do. My point was that even if the 'puritans' didn't actually practice what they preached, just preaching it could reduce some deviation.

"Last, the sanctimonious judgements shown by this columnist as well as many posters (I presume they are adults) indeed raise the question of hypocrasy - not necessarily conscious hypocrasy, but definitely a form of ideological aphasia and cognitive dissonance."

Again, I don't think it is wrong, or even necessarily hypocritical for a parent to tell their kids not to do something that the parent does. Ie, the smoking/drinking parent who tells their kids not to smoke/drink.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 98
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 5:01 PM EST
RE: Useful Idiots
"So Clearly Liberals beleive [sic] the Government should play an active role in people's sexuality. Conservatives do not."

>>

Be honest, now.

"Conservatives" (specifically, the moralists) are the proponents & supporters of laws that criminalize(d)...
+ sodomy
+ adultery
+ prostitution
+ sales &/or possession of sex paraphernalia (ie: toys)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 99
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 5:29 PM EST
Liberty First

Sorry, I don't know any conservatives who support laws against.

+ sodomy
+ adultery
+ prostitution
+ sales &/or possession of sex paraphernalia (ie: toys)

I am sure there must be some, but that would also be true of a few Liberals who also support laws against those things.

I do know only Liberals support government funding of abortions, condoms, sex education, sex change operations etc. etc.

Remember, Liberals believe its the parents job to protect kids from internet porn and the governments job to feed kids their school lunch.

These are not rational people.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 100
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 5:51 PM EST
RE: Useful Idiots
"Sorry, I don't know any conservatives who support laws against."

>>

I call BS, but I digress.

YOU said, "So Clearly Liberals beleive [sic] the Government should play an active role in people's sexuality. Conservatives do not."

Your last sentence there is simply false. Conservatives (particularly moralists) are/were the proponents, supporters, & defenders of those laws. (They're certainly NOT the ones beating down the legislatures to repeal those laws...)

So, conservatives certainly DO believe the government should play an active role in people's sexuality.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 101
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 5:53 PM EST
RE: Useful Idiots
"... I do know only Liberals support government funding of abortions, condoms, sex education, sex change operations etc. etc..."

>>

You KNOW this? You're omniscient!?

So. There are absolutely NO "conservatives" that support any of those?


I call BS again!


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 102
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 6:03 PM EST
Liberty First

Well many liberals do choose to ignore the facts when they don't support their point of view.

However you are free to name any Conservatives who support government funding of abortions, condoms, sex change operations etc. etc.

You are also free to list any state that is considering banning laws prohibiting sodemy, sex toys, pornagraphy etc etc.

Since we know you won't be able to. My posts will stand.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 103
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 6:28 PM EST
RE: Usefull Idiots
"You are also free to list any state that is considering banning laws prohibiting sodemy [sic], sex toys, pornagraphy [sic] etc etc..."

>>

First, note, I did not mention pornography.

Second, I note that you ignored adultery & prostitution [which I listed]. So, I guess you acknowledge those, thereby proving my point. [Some] Conservatives DO believe that the government should play an active role in sexuality. But...

RE: Sex Toys
+ Alabama
"Alabama. Illegal dildos. In the spotlight recently, as the U.S. Supreme Court just declined to review the constitutionality of the state's law banning the sale of such naughty and phallically radiant toys. Did you see the story? Did it make you cringe and sigh and reach for the Hitachi Magic Wand? Aren't we just a proud and deeply misguided nation?"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archiv e/2005/03/04/notes030405.DTL

+ Georgia - In Georgia it is currently illegal to sell any device intended to sexually stimulate a person. (Stores manage to get around the law by labeling the devices "novelties".)

+ Louisiana
+ Texas


RE: Sodomy Laws
+ Several states still had anti-sodomy laws on the books when the Supreme Court struck them down with Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) in 2003. A number of states, however, still try to enforce their laws (http://www.sodomylaws.org/).

NOTE: It was conservatives that opposed the SCotUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, calling it "judicial activism" (http://www.conservapedia.com/Lawrence_v._Texas).

Additional Note, prior to Lawrence v. Texas, a number of states also had anti-fornication statutes.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 104
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 6:31 PM EST
RE: Useful Idiots
"... Since we know you won't be able to. My posts will stand..."

>>

And since I JUST did, you just proved that what YOU think YOU "know" is worthless.


Regardless, YOU said, "So Clearly Liberals beleive [sic] the Government should play an active role in people's sexuality. Conservatives do not."

The last sentence is, quite simply, false. [Some] Conservatives certainly DO believe that Government should play an active role in people's sexuality.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 105
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 7:17 PM EST
Liberty
"Again, I don't think it is wrong, or even necessarily hypocritical for a parent to tell their kids not to do something that the parent does. Ie, the smoking/drinking parent who tells their kids not to smoke/drink. "

On that point, I totally agree with you.

Let's put your conservative hand and my liberal one together for a high-five.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 106
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 7:23 PM EST
Liberty First

Interesting you named Texas & Louisiana with a Democratic Legistures. Thanks for supporting my point of view.

I am not sure about Georgia, But we do know Georgia has a strong Democratic Party since they dominate Ted Turner's Atlanta.

So your argument is kinda weak listing only a few states out of 50. Without knowing all the particulars, these states may well be attempting to keep these items from public view where kids can see them. Protecting kids is the role of government. Funding people's sex lives with abortions and condoms is not.

So I prefer government stay out of peoples sex lives, If I had to choose between keeping sex toys out of view of children or funding people's abortions, I would choose the ban.

As I have clearly shown, Liberals do support government involvment in peoples sexuality.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 107
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 8:56 PM EST
Useful
Georgia has been dominated by the GOP since 2002--a House and Senate both dominated by the GOP, the Gov., Lt. Gov., Sec. of State all GOP. Only two statewide offices held by the DP--the ancient Comm. of Ag., and the Comm. of Labor.

Both US Senators are GOP as are the majority of the US House delegation. Alabama is solid GOP as well. The South is the Solid South--Solid GOP.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 108
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 9:41 PM EST
Akagi
Well that is what you say but the facts suggest otherwise. Sam Nun was a long time Democratic Senator from the state and was very liberal on social issues. Saxby Chanless defeated a Democrat to win his seat and recently almost lost. So Clearly there are many Liberals in Georgia seeking to have the Federal Government manage their lives because they are not capable of managing their own lives.

But to the larger point. I really don't care if the good people of Georgia want to ban sodomy, sex toys or whatever. They may have a very good reason for doing so. Could be prostitutes are committing sodomy on public streets and the courts are not enforcing current laws so additional laws are needed.

I do have a problem with the Federal Government funding abortions, sex change operations, or condoms. People in New Jersey should not be funding abortions in Oregon. If Oregon wants to fund abortions that is up to the people of Oregon. As we see with California. They want to all sorts of social services. They also want other states to pay for them.

This is the world according to Liberals.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 109
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 9:43 PM EST
Someone please tell me why?

Will someone please tell me why a single mom working as a waitress in Kentucky should be forced to pay for people to have sex change operations in California?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 110
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:07 PM EST
Useful
Will someone please tell me why?

Will someone please tell my why my married, multi-millionaire cousin should be forced to help pay for a child in Pennsylvania to have heart surgery, or a shunt for hydrocephalus?

It's just such an unfair world, isn't it, Useful? You may be right, we should all keep our own money and just let others die in misery, as God apparently intended them to.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 111
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 10:35 PM EST
ethan
Your attempt to reply to Useful is nothing short of imbecilic. Non sequiter, to boot.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 112
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 11:26 PM EST
Ban the back seat!
Few people have had the impact on teenage sexuality that Henry Ford did. By mass producing the automobile, he also unwittingly invented the backseat make-out.

Similarly, the invention of free, unsupervised photography has lead to a change in teenage sexual behavior.

I do not believe that what goes on between consenting teenagers is a criminal matter, and they should not be labeled "sex criminals" over naughty photos. If they are not old enough to give consent, then they are not old enough to be criminally liable.

That said, any adult in possession of such images should go directly to jail, do not pass GO.

The last paragraph of this column is the most insightful; the cultural mores need to change if we want to protect teens from self-destructive sexual behavior. If we need the criminal law, we are in big trouble.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 113
Date: Mar 4, 2009 - 11:36 PM EST
Michael
Your response is embarrassing. I said nothing that was any more silly or pointless than the comment made by useful; in fact, I said exactly the same thing.

funny how it seems pointless it seems when you invert the already pointless example, isn't it?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 114
Date: Mar 5, 2009 - 1:58 AM EST
Useful? No. Idiot? Yes.
"Interesting you named Texas & Louisiana with a Democratic Legistures...

"I am not sure about Georgia, But we do know Georgia has a strong Democratic Party since they dominate Ted Turner's Atlanta."

>>

Having Democratic legisatures or strong Democratic parties is meaningless. The laws that I referenced were enacted decades (some over a century) ago by moralists (ie: Conservatice) and they are still, to this day, defended BY [some] Conservatives (See: Conservative opposition to Lawrence v. Texas).

----------

"... So your argument is kinda weak listing only a few states out of 50..."

>>

YOU said, ""You are also free to list any state that is considering banning laws prohibiting sodemy [sic], sex toys, pornagraphy [sic] etc etc..."

To meet your demand, I only needed to list ONE ("any state") for each (sodomy & sex toys). I did. I even provided links to sources.

The fact that I only listed a few is irrelevant. The fact that I listed more than one only bolsters MY argument and diminishes yours.

Admit it. You were/are wrong.

[Some] Conservatives certainly DO believe that the government should play an active role in people's sexuality.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 115
Date: Mar 5, 2009 - 9:23 AM EST
Useful
Saxby almost lost not because of liberals but because of his support for immigration reform. Many conservatives that would have voted for him went over in protest and voted for the Libertarian candidate and due to Georgia law since Saxby didn't get the required 50% forced a runoff with Martin. In the runoff, Saxby won by 16%. Sam Nunn, a hawk on national security left office in 1997. Max Cleland was a loved figure in Georgia and a popular Secretary of State but his selling out to the Democratic Party doomed him. Georgia is a Republican State and has solidly so since 2002. Perhaps you should stick with a state you actually know something about.

As for funding, I don't like public funds spent on idiotic agencies like the DEA either but I have no choice in the matter. There is no funding of abortions by the Federal government--the funding was for agencies that provide abortions, but these funds were for other activities of these organizations and not abortions themselves and for abortions for US military overseas who wanted to terminate. Bush ended both of these. So much for supporting the troops.

As for what Georgia does, we agree. The issue is not IF but SHOULD. I disagree with the reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas. Georgia has plenty of idiotic laws--mostly due to Christian "conservatives" such as no beer sales on Sunday. I think Georgia should be able to pass stupid laws, just that it should have better sense and not select to pass such.

The Georgia legislature is the biggest collection of morons, idiots and other half brain-dead people you'll ever see outside of some "freak show" from the turn of the last century. Actually calling them idiots and morons is an insult to actual idiots and morons who are much more bright than they.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 116
Date: Mar 5, 2009 - 2:12 PM EST
Ethan #106
Agreed ^5
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 117
Date: Mar 5, 2009 - 2:17 PM EST
akagi spins
You're a spinmeister.

"funds were for other activities of these organizations and not abortions themselves,"

That's spin.

Abortion is the reason these people get up in the morning. Try to be intellectually honest.

" . . . and abortions for US military overseas who wanted to terminate. Bush ended both of these. So much for supporting the troops."

Bush, their Commander in Chief, dealt with abortion as conscience urged him, not as the troops desired. I'm sure if they'd been giving unbiased opinions on the matter, troops would have told pregnant G.I.s to beat it back to the states and have their illegitimate babies. Then give up what they didn't want for adoption. (So much for new-born American citizens.)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 118
Date: Mar 5, 2009 - 2:38 PM EST
Re: Back to the column
I find this to be a terribly complicated issue.

It is clear to me that laws intended to punish lecherous old men and prevent them from exploiting naive and innocent young girls should not be applied to punish teenage boys for receiving naughty pictures of their teenage girlfriends.

Prosecutors, however, face a difficult decision. Their job is to enforce the law. While some prosecutorial discretion certainly exists, I would not want to live in a world where that got out of hand to the point where prosecutors decided willy-nilly which cases to prosecute and which to ignore.

The discussion above (#87) of the Traci Lords brings up a good point. In those vids Traci Lords appeared to be an adult woman (from what I hear) but technically, legally she was a juvenile thus child porn. Paradoxically, consider any of a host of "barely legal" porn mags behind the counter at your gas station. They take youthful looking 18-19 yr olds, do their hair and makeup to make them look as young as possible (again, from what I hear).

Should both be illegal or only one, which one?

Finally, I absolutely despise the anti-guy crusade underlying this whole article. The boys who received the pics were charged with possession of child porn but not the girls who took and distributed the pics? Ah, the girl who took the pic possessed it too.

Why does our legal system still pretend that girls are naive and stupid and in need of protection from the much smarter boys which which they associate?
Flag as Offensive
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:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.