Lust for Life (The Prevented Revolution)

In a new trend spreading across America, teens are sending nude or semi-nude pictures to one another on their mobile phones in a practice called “sexting”. But what started out as risqué fun among adolescents has spread fast, and is starting to lead to serious consequences. Recently, teenagers have been arrested on child pornography – Read on…

Research conducted by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy last month revealed that 20% of teens in the States say they have sent or posted lewd photos or video of themselves. According to the national study, most teenagers who were sending the explicit messages were sending them to boyfriends or girlfriends, while others said they were sending the pictures in a bold move to secure a date, or to someone they had got to know online.

A new trend? Are you fucking kidding me? OK, I’ll let the Captain Obvious thing beside and focus on WTF!? We have talked about something similar in the milkboard just yesterday and since I’m a lazy butt I’ll just copy & paste what I’ve said there: First of all I think it’s strange how everything with someone under 18 is called child porn in the US & UK. I mean a 17 year old boy isn’t a child in any definition. I don’t know exactly about other countries but in Germany you’re called a "child" by law as long as you’re under 14. Besides that I see nothing criminal in a 15 year old boy making nude shots with his mobile phone for his girlfriend – but still he can get in trouble because he produced so called "child porn".

How is this protecting the boy? What’s next? Getting jailed for "self rape" when you get caught wanking? They tell you they want to protect the children but what they do is criminalizing them, it just makes no sense at all.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

But why, you will ask, are the politicians doing bullshit like this nevertheless? Well, here is a theory: Because they fear them. I read about that in an article in a blog written by a BBC reporter where the author cites a Finnish study about youth crime (the study isn’t accessible anymore unfortunately):

The argument is that economic globalisation has substantially eroded a state’s capacity to govern directly and so "intervention in the lives of socially deviant children" emerges as a "mechanism whereby the state attempts to establish or sustain its political authority". To put it another way, politicians demonise children in order to disguise their own weaknesses.

The youth, which still knows the meaning of freedom, could bring down the government, even the whole political system if they don’t suppress them and their lust for life? Are they creating a new era of Victorian prudery because they fear to reap what they sow by exploiting the whole planet to enrich a few while millions starve. Vilifying sex to protect the globalisation? Yes, it might sound melodramatic but in makes sense in a creepy way.

  

55 thoughts on “Lust for Life (The Prevented Revolution)”

  1. Actually Josh, all Children fall under the definition of 18 years old. The US has consolidated this term to mean under 18 to make it easier to use as a definition.

    You cannot get a credit card until you are 18 because you are a child. You cannot smoke because you are a child. You cannot drink, because you are a child. You cannot have sex (technically, this could create some controversy), because you are a child. In court, oftentimes you are tried in Family Court, because you are a child.

    There are many more…

    But I guess this means that half of all pictures now posted of boys on these types of blogs are ‘illegal.

    1. OK, than you have another definition of Children than we have. As I said: You’re not a child anymore in Germany as soon as you become 14. There is a difference between not being an adult an being a child.

  2. The word ‘child’ is as paradoxical as the corresponding rights and responsibilities. In the UK, a ‘child’ can legally marry, fight and die for his or her country, have sex (M-M, M-F, F-F) but certainly not appear in a lewd photo.

    I’m not convinced by the link between the Finnish study and the prosecution of sexters, though, as it compares the US and Britain’s treatment of young offenders, whereas the Times article states that sexting is an American fad, which hasn’t (yet) reached the UK.

    Both in the US and in the UK, the number of, erm, children prosecuted for child pornography offences is very small, certainly by comparison with the number prosecuted for other things. I’m sure there is a tend here, but it’s hardly surprising when new technologies such as camera phones now mean that ‘children’ are more able to make and possess ‘child pornography'; unless the law is changed specifically to allow it, there will be some who get caught and punished. The absurdity here is in the laws regarding child pornography, rather than in the persecution of youth per se.

    The persecution of youth is real enough, but the vast majority of the teenagers both in the UK and the US who suffer in the way the Finns do not, are arrested and imprisoned for other offences – theft, assault, motoring offences etc. I think it is far fetched to blame the state for this crackdown on youth: I think there is a broader loathing of kids, particularly in the UK: the oppression of youth is popular with voters (who are, of course, all over 18). This may sound crazy, but when half the adults surveyed in a recent YouGov poll described children as ‘behaving like animals’, it makes a whole lot of sense (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7732290.stm).

  3. I’ve only just turned 15 and i send pics, videos and webcam with people i meet online as well as people i know face to face. There is nothing wrong with it as long as no one gets hurt. They call this a “free country” yet they constantly tell us what we can and cannot do. I’m about the farthest thing from a virgen there is (I’m bi so boys and girls) and there is nothing the government can say to stop me.

  4. “Because they fear them”? That’s a rather absurd proposition. More likely, the trend is actually regarded as a problem by some people, particularly parents. And who are the voters in this equation? Yep…the parents.

    Besides which, it is the market, not the state, that drives globalization. In point of fact, the state is often affected detrimentally by globalization; imagine how easily diplomacy might be executed if a nation wasn’t invested so heavily in another. Look at the US government; we can’t deal effectively with any of our rival powers because of our heavy addiction to their fuel resources.

    And if you’ll notice, just before the photo, there’s that slippery-slope rearing its ugly head again…

  5. Josh, once again you have a good grip on things and are quick to see through the political lies we are fed on a daily basis.

    There is a simple and scientific method to determine if one is a child: if a person has entered puberty, he is no longer a child. Any other definition involves fantasy and/or hypocrisy.
    People love to trade insight for peace of mind and that is why we suffer under these god-forsaken political systems.

    The arguments that adults use against the young revolve around the illusion that they are not yet experienced enough to handle so-called “important” decisions, “important” being what the adults say is “important”.

    These are the same people who have landed the world in a situation today in which the very survival of the human species is in doubt on all counts including that most sacred of all cows, the economy. Adults are always trying to comfort themselves with the absurd notion that “THEY won’t let that happen”. Well, it HAS happened and THEY are the ones responsible for having wreaked havoc on us.

    That quote from the BBC journalist citing a Finnish study is spot-on! Thanks for that Josh. You are my hero!

  6. MrChives, are you a CIA plant here or an NGO? Or both, and only here to defend the status quo?

    “Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”

  7. OMG, I just read the BBC report you linked to by Mark Easton. It’s titled “Populist ventriloquism” and that is exactly what MrChives is, a Populist Ventriloquist!

    Keep up your political attacks Josh. The “Tinker Bells” can only survive if everyone keeps clapping. If one person stops clapping “Tinker Bell” will die. And good fucking riddance!

  8. Bobby; There’s nothing simple about this discussion. People mature at different rates, and it is a scientific reality that young people are more mentally and biologically prone to poor judgment. The frontal lobe, controlling decision-making and personality, develops later than any other portion of the brain. In fact, in many cases the brain is not fully developed until one reaches the early twenties (hence the drinking age in America is twenty-one, as before that time alcohol will affect the development of the brain).

    Visit this site for more information…
    http://www.childrenshospital.org/patientsfamilies/Site1393/mainpageS1393P316sublevel357.html

    Not that it really matters, but I’m a twenty year old university student, so don’t assume I’m speaking from a position of elderly privilege. When I see first-hand the results of youthful decisions everyday…well, I’m inclined to stand apart from my peers.

  9. I, too, have just read Easton’s report; I hope you gathered that Easton doesn’t support this view?–

    “It is a cynical view of the motivation of our elected representatives, it seems to me, and I am not persuaded that the pursuit of power always trumps a belief in social justice.”–Easton

    Further, Bobby, you appear not to have realized that I am arguing -against- the proposals of Populist ventriloquism? And, further still, that Josh was in fact the only one who came close to espousing the theory?

    So, in summation;

    I don’t support the theory;
    Josh seems to, as he posted it here;
    You support Josh’s post, thereby supporting the theory itself;
    You criticize me for supporting a theory which I don’t support, but which you do, and then you laud Josh, who seems to support the theory, for criticizing my support…which isn’t support at all;

    Can someone help clarify? That’s the best I can do.

  10. Why do teenagers feel it’s ok to make nude images in the first place and think it’s ok thats my question?

  11. I say…this political talk is all fair and well…very productive for the sake of…but I am dearly missing out on what I do come to this site for…pretty pictures…I am very entertained by the political posts, thought the Poe post was very cool as well (fan of his work and had not heard about that movie, thanks muchly)…

    The child or adult question is not a very hard one, though sparking controversy because politicians need their rallying cry, there is a societal “norm” (American here) and I really don’t expect too much change. Fully functional (not independent, mind you, far from completely independent) status is gained by 15 or 16…I know people mature at different rates, age differently, but the point remains that you are at the very aware of yourself and your surroundings…to lighten the mood…have this satirical view of my basic opinion
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2wN6mqXoQ

    now please…I do understand the need to work this out as it affects all of us…but…remember to keep the deal balanced with the pictures we all come here for, know, and love dearly

    thanks muchly

  12. Fateforgotten, there’s a difference between contract adulthood (18, used to be 21), age of consent (varies between 12 (!) and “never” depending on where you are and with whom you want to have sex), the voting age (eg 16 in Austria and Iran) and the age of judicial responsibility (14 in Germany). Back when the gay age of consent was 18 in Germany (both east and west), cases of “exploitation” were looked at by district attorneys and magistrates and almost always, unless there was crass abuse by the older person (scoutmasters beware!), the charges were dismissed. Such an intelligent application of a “morals” law seems to be completely lacking in the US. Why?

    Btw when I was 15 I took nude photos of my bf (35mm negative). I only ever showed him the pics. We got off on them, it was fun. A couple of years later I burnt them. Unless sexual freedom and love and respect for others takes a turn for the better (LOL!) I wouldn’t recommend anyone distribute photos of themselves. They’re digital, they can be EVERYWHERE tomorrow. In a couple of years some bastard will try to destroy you or your career with them. But taylor if you want to, you can send me your pics :) …joke… sort of…

  13. @comment #12
    Not me, just to avoid confusion ;)

    @MrChives
    Yes, I do understand that Easton doesn’t support this view. As for me: my intention here was basically to bring this topic up for discussion, regardless of my own view.

  14. Why do teens take pics of themselves? Because it’s a horny thing to do. Why do teens distribute them? Because they want to turn someone on. Simple. It is a bit stoopid though…

  15. Sorry thought the josh above who asked the why teens question is you josh.
    Why governments try to prohibit it? How many million theories might there be?
    There is an influential group of US “opinion makers” who are convinced that the hippies and the sexual revolution of the 60s damaged US society enormously. I suppose they’re trying to “wehret die Anfänge!” by stopping young people (“children!”) from making sexual decisions for themselves. Defining the “child” so broadly gives them scope for more control.
    Alternative theory: Moralists need to be able to defend “morals” to give their lives meaning. They can’t attack homosexual men or “loose women” as vigorously as they would like (public opinion has moved on), so they’ve sought out a battleground where no one is allowed to object – “protecting the children!” They don’t want to protect children from hunger, poverty, lack of access to education or physical violence, they just want to protect their genitals. Their theory is that teenagers (note MrChives citing the frontal lobe development idea as supporting evidence!!) are unable to decide for themselves who they want to have sex with and thus should have sex with no one. Ever. At all. Until they turn 18 when they magically become adults.
    Theiry number 3: US society is schizophrenic.

  16. Your sound all intelligent with your big words but really whats your point?
    over the past 10 years child porn has grew over 40% A large chunk of that came from self-taken pic/video from boys as young as 5-17 as well as girls
    Now don’t you think that’s wrong that these pic gets posted on the web and stored in pedophile websites,and being shared over the web.
    Law enforcement has to view photos videos so disturbing you can’t even imagine. SO saying why governments try to prohibit it because it flues the child porn business. It’s a million dollar businesses and minors taking nude,explicit pictures is not helping is making things worse and putting there life’s and family life’s in danger. And wasting time of finding real abuse and sexually abused children.
    And if you knew anything about this Officers have to view photos/videos to determine the boys/girls location. And their is success storeis on that.

    You guys see noting wrong with it because you don;t think outside the box.

    1. @josh

      Are you sure you’re talking about the same thing as we do?

      We’re NOT talking about “real” child porn but about SELF PICS taken by minors. That’s not a business (they don’t sell them at last) nor is it something that harms anyone involved.

      You think people could use self taken photos to sell them on CP sites? Did you ever see such a site? Well, me neither. And besides that: Who said teens should make these pics public? Nobody. So what’s wrong if they send them to another teen? How is that harming anyone or supporting any disturbing business?

      Just a side note: I doubt that 5 year olds are taking sexually suggestive photos of themselves (we are talking about teenagers anyways, not about children) and I’d like to see a source for the 40% statement.

  17. “over the past 10 years child porn has grew over 40% A large chunk of that came from self-taken pic/video from boys as young as 5-17 as well as girls” Source?
    “Law enforcement has to view photos videos so disturbing you can’t even imagine.” News items about pedophile busts ALWAYS say photos were found of children “some as young as 2 years old”. It’s the trump card.
    “It’s a million dollar businesses” Source?
    “You guys see noting wrong with it because you don;t think outside the box.” nothing wrong with what? Teenagers taking photos of themselves and sharing them or with child porn?

  18. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/feb/26/news.childrensservices
    Approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography. And this information is from the FBI, CEOP ect.
    Second you say it doesn’t harm anyone understand it can get into the wrong hands. And it does harm some one.
    They don’t sell and trade it? what are you kidding me you just proven me that you have no idea whats’ going on.
    GO to imgsrc and Ning for starters millions of photos of teenagers and yes even 5 year old’s on cam and in pictures
    do disturbing acts and taking nude photos.
    That is child porn that law wont change I guarantee my life on that.
    OK there limits and rules and there is no valid reason you have gave to me to say that this law is unjust.
    If police officers are able find these people by looking at the photos what do you think smart predators will be able to do as well?
    And what is real child porn to you?

  19. MrChives, so it appears you are not a CIA plant but a Jesuit theologian.

    What you call “science” is modern day witchcraft. Just read all the “scientific” evidence about homosexuality being a major cause of schizophrenia written in the 1950s. Masturbation was called “self abuse”. What you are bringing up will appear even more absurd in a decade if there is a decade left to us. It’s not the wild and immature children who have brought the world to the brink of the abyss with their sexual experiments. It’s the adult rulers of earth who “are more mentally and biologically prone to poor judgment”. This is a fact. Open your eyes and look around you. Madness is in the saddle everywhere. Norway just enacted a law that makes it a crime for its citizens and residents, punishable by three years in prison and a fine for anyone who exchanges money for sexual favours with anyone of any age anywhere in the world. What frontal lobe was this law designed to protect? Several other countries are eager to pass similar legislation including your own sexually intolerant and fascistic country, hell bent as it is on dogmatic and Puritanical world domination by force.

    Roddo in comment number 18 hit the nail on the head with his observations which I agree with completely.

    Comment number 19 is so ludicrous as to be comical. This one is a witch hunter and executioner in training looking for trouble where there is none to begin with. “Thinking outside the box” is what he call his comments which even Goebbels would have prided himself on.

    No one in his right mind would try to make money on pornography involving people under 18. Thankfully, almost all if it is FREE FREE FREE! It’s all out there for the taking and the kids today are producing tons of the the stuff themselves and posting it all over the internet. This is a cause for celebration.

    America’s “war on drugs” has been equally successful in this regard which I am sure you will find “scientific” evidence to support MrChives.

    MrChives, I also wish to call to your attention the 40% of the American population which identifies with fundamentalist Christian dogma. These people are highly vocal and can actually convince others that they are in the majority and I am sure that played a huge role in getting Bush elected as your leader twice over. (Bush was even able to find scientists who denied global warming.)

    Also, why doesn’t anyone bring up all the parents who are not in the least bothered by their children’s sexuality and with whom they are fucking around. The only reason that these people remain silent is that they will be shouted down as perverts at best or imprisoned at worse or have NGOs and feminazi social workers take their children away. The vast majority of America is a wasteland of ossified thinking that does not tolerate sexual dissent in any way, shape or form, and will destroy anyone who violates their illusions.

    You can read about some of the history of sexual fascism in America at this site which discusses a woman who is a great hero of freedom. See what they tried to do to her in your fucking country:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Livingston

    Read also Germaine Greer’s book “The Beautiful Boy” published in America by Rizzoli, and read the works of Camille Paglia. I have brought up only the names of living women deliberately.

    “It would be terrible to still believe in sin; on the contrary everything we do, if we need to say this a thousand times, is innocent.”
    -Nietzsche, 1881 – 82

  20. From Bobby
    “No one in his right mind would try to make money on pornography involving people under 18. Thankfully, almost all if it is FREE FREE FREE! It’s all out there for the taking and the kids today are producing tons of the the stuff themselves and posting it all over the internet. This is a cause for celebration.”

    Bobby have you been living under a rock and a celebration!!! ignorance is bliss

  21. Re: Comment number 22

    “And this information is from the FBI, CEOP ect.”

    Oh yes, these people know what is good for us! If you believe that, then you are certifiably insane.
    Find another blog first of all, you fucking fruitcake! Where are you from? Darkest Alabama or Iran? Maybe you are the Pope?

    You think nude photos are pornography? You are too nutty to be believed for a single moment.

  22. The united states wishes all the world to think and act as they (we) do. The only problem is, people are individuals. Free thinking people are a danger to any government that wants to control its citizens. The best place to start to gain control of a society is it’s young. Think of the Hitler Youth movement. I was born in the united states and have lived here all my life. What this nation has become, frightens me. What we are doing to our young people is wrong. It is my opinion that this is why the young people of the u.s. are doing what they are doing. It is their way of rebelling against a system that discounts their rights, and forces them to conform to a standard that hinders free thought and speach. I whish the rest of the world would see what is happening here and protest just as loudly as they do about other countries that seek to repress their citizens.

  23. to Josh (not the admin Josh) :
    “Approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography.” Which definition of child is in use here? 0-18? Which definition of pornography? Do you measure Gigabits, numbers of photos or traffic? As President Truman once said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

    From my own non-scientific research I’d say 98% of porn is 16+. If people want to quote me, please! My figures are at least as valid as those of the FBI and the UK police. They have their jobs to protect after all.

    But yes, there are some very nasty pics out there and some very nasty people exploitating young children. But that brings us back to Josh the Admin’s question: how does throwing teenagers in prison, putting them on sex register lists and ruining their lives for taking self-pics of themselves help to stop exploitation of little kids?

  24. Ok first I live in New York City 20 years old served in the Us Air force. Now attending NYU. I’m a libertarian and I wanted and supported Ron Paul for president. I believe in small government.
    Now You call talk about how bad the government is which they are I’m not defending them. But what about taking responsibility for your own actions and take responsibility for letting the government get so corrupt in the first place.
    We the people are to blame .
    Second
    And I agree with you on one point putting the kids in jail and on the sex register list is harsh let the parents deal with it
    But to say it’s normal and it doesn’t harm anyone is foolish. You keep talking about rights what rights? What does this have to do with rights?
    And 131 children have been saved by Ceop so bobby I think those kids would disagree with you who has been saved from Ceop.

  25. Roddo, it would be more appropriate to ask the grand inquisitors to turn down the heat in the Auschwitz style ovens that they always seem to be preparing for us.

    Once when John Young was asked why he created what has been called “the world’s most dangerous website” he answered by saying “I’m a pretty fucking angry guy.” I identify with that sentiment completely.

    Read it here: http://cryptome.org

    Better yet read them and make a donation. They are exposing the treachery of governments worldwide.

    “Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary, and have become so familiar to us.” -FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY, “Notes From the Underground”, Part I; VII

  26. Hi Josh
    one of your former colleagues, an Army private, spent 3 years in a US Federal prison for “raping a child”. He was 18 at the time and stationed in Bavaria, his girlfriend 19. They had sex. Bad move. She was still a high school student, thus a “child”. She is a US citizen. Had she been German, there would have been no crime to answer for. Which brings us back to the definition of “child”…
    You say that people shoudl take responsibilty for their own actions. Certainly. But on the one hand US law demands that teenagers take responsibility for their actions (“sexting”) and pay the legal price; but on the other hand US law says they can’t take responsibility for their own sexual lives. Isn’t that pretty stupid?
    Rights? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness might be a good start. You could make an argument that my creative right to take photos of my teenage self is part of the pursuit of happiness and that my right to collect “works of art” is part of that same pursuit. Who can define what art is?
    Good luck with your studies.

  27. Bobby,
    I’m spending my days and evenings reading Victor Klemperer’s diary of life in the “third reich”. Victor Klemperer was a professor of linguistics and a Jew who lived in Dresden and risked his life to chronicle the hideousness of Nazism. Coincidently he was the uncle of Werner Klemperer, who played Colonel Klink in “Hogan’s Heroes”. Your Auschwitz comparison is not just odious, it is wrong. As my Australian friends would say, pull your fuckin’ head in. If you really need to make extreme comparisons, try “witch hunt”. I’d agree with you, in part, on that.
    Regards

  28. I think a lot of people make a lot of money commissioning and publicizing studies that show their points of view, no matter what that point of view happens to be. So, I don’t believe any study I’m not conducting myself. Anyone wishing to participate in my study of this phenomenon can sext me at 2485555555.

    I think many politicians, media outlets, churches, and community organizations raise a lot of money and political capital by keeping your average USian family totally spooked by the latest rage/internet trend/missing white college kid/molestation case.

    The outrage promotion industry (I really think it exists as an industry) generates byproducts, just like any other industry. Sex offender registries are a byproduct. So are play dates, getting your kid microchipped (are they doing that yet?), the vast numbers of minivans at bus stops every morning, and the outrageous over-scheduling of teenagers to after school activities.

    It’s all part of bigger initiative called “keep the population unthinking and distracted”, or keeping the family safe: link.

    This comment brought to you by the National Whatabunchashit Society.

  29. Re: comment number 29

    You say you “live in New York City 20 years old served in the Us Air force”.
    I deliberately and thoughtfully avoided attacking you on your totally ignorant use of English grammar and syntax since I thought you might be from a non-English speaking country, and at least I was kind enough to give you the benefit of the doubt on that count.

    To learn that you are a student at NYU in New York City is simply appalling!

    You are so fucking stupid that I will not waste any more time writing to you.
    If the fate of your country is in the hands of people such as you, then we are in far worse shape than I could have ever imagined in my worst nightmare.

    Just as a side thought, were you bombing innocent men, women and children while you served in the US Air Force, or just aiding an abetting those who did? One wonders if you were “just following orders” as the defendants at Nürnberg tried to unsuccessfully fob off as a defense for their murderous behaviour?

    What you have provided for us is as eloquent a piece of self-condemnation as I have ever read.
    May I suggest you go back to Grade One and learn how to read and write just as a start.

    Cheers!

  30. Bobby, get off your fuckin’ high horse. I think Josh was probably just doing what hundreds of thousands of other young Americans do in the military, earning college credits. It’s a pity that after you wrote that you wouldn’t waste any more time writing, you still managed another 124 words. I for my part will end… here.

  31. This is for Josh, the administrator of this site, a line from one of the people on his Heroes page:

    “Whatever the state says is a lie; whatever it has is a theft: all is counterfeit in it, the gnawing, sanguinary, insatiate monster.”

    —Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Pt. I, “On the New Idol”

  32. OK Josh, (Admin Josh, not the interloper),

    I had no idea how wrong I could have been about the American armed forces! Mea Culpa!

    It came as a great shock to me to learn as Roddo has so kindly informed me that the USA forces are a benevolent educational organization for hundreds of thousands of young men to earn college credits. Wow! I never knew that, and I want to be the first to admit my error! How could I have been so stupid as to miss that fact?

    So who is it doing all the bombing and strafing of innocent men, women and children around the world that I read about on a daily basis and flying the rendition flights to secret prisons everywhere on the planet in direct contravention of every law of civilized society? Could it possibly be Colonel Klink?

  33. i think personal attacks are not very productive.
    making laws that define the human body as obscene creates confusion.
    and ” the macho is the worst”.

  34. Bobby, I’m taking Josh the Admin’s advice here. But as a last aside, if you didn’t know about college credits (and unemployment) as a driving force in US armed forces recruitment (btw minimum enlistment age is 17… do those guys sext?), you really should bone up on the Great Satan. Your critique would be that much stronger! That’s it from me, I have nothing more to add this thread. Good night and good luck!

  35. Bobby; Jesuit Theologian? Sorry, Liberal Secular Atheist, and with a deep appreciation for SCIENCE. The “Frontal lobe development idea” (Roddo) is a demonstrable fact. No witchcraft here, just machines that go -PING-. Oh, and Harvard neurologists who practice medicine at Children’s Hospitals.

    I would be very anxious to learn what government you have in mind, if not a republic. Yes, fundamental Christianity (and religion of any kind, really) is a problem. As a relatively well-educated homosexual living in Northwestern Iowa, I’m keenly aware of the fact. That hardly means we should upend our political system in favor of a Juventocracy or an elitist Oligarchy, those being the government systems I gather you would call for? You can blame those of us who involve ourselves in the democratic process for all the world’s problems, but in the end that’s not enough. You have to come up with a working solution. While you’re developing that, call to mind the fact that the greatest political minds of the last 400 years are against you (Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Jefferson, you’ve heard the litany). Also, look to Russia (then and now) and China for examples of why other systems fail.

    And you’re right, the drug war has been entirely unsuccessful. That’s because there’s a market for it EVERYWHERE. There’s a market for it everywhere because people start using drugs while in their teens, when the undeveloped FRONTAL LOBE fails to prevent unnecessary risk-taking and poor judgment.

    Bush entirely ignored the scientific community. That era has passed.

    The United States has no interests in World Domination, especially by force. We do seek world-wide influence, by way of trade alliances, wherein to further our already well established Pax Americana. Has anyone stopped to consider why Europe hasn’t fought a real war in 60 years? They didn’t just get tired of what had been their favorite pastime for centuries. They don’t fight because we won’t let them. Unfortunately, some of you will point to Vietnam and Iraq as evidence of overextended American militarism. As M (Dame Judi Dench) said in Casino Royale, “They don’t care about what we do, they care about what we get photographed doing.” A good quote if, as C. S. Lewis said, “we are not to proud to seek it there.” (The Problem of Pain. He was referring to The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame)

    On the whole, Bobby, I’d say you’ve had nothing relevant to add to this conversation, but I could be wrong.

    Josh [Admin]; My apologies for implicating you, in an above post, in something you didn’t say. Also, the virtual sex ad at the bottom is making me laugh hysterically.

  36. Sorry, had to come back…
    Yes MrChives, I know the “Frontal lobe development idea” is a demonstrable fact. The point I made is that you harnassed it as an argument FOR the sexual repression of people under 18. You wrote “young people are more mentally and biologically prone to poor judgment”.
    We learn from our mistakes. It’s called growing up. But the problem is that the law as it stands allows no mistakes, it brands people who sext as “child pornographers” and ruins their lives. That’s the point of this thread.

  37. And I would agree with you, Roddo, in saying that these laws are flawed. I offered that evidence only in response to Bobby’s assertion that puberty is the point that absolutely separates childhood from adulthood. Everything that has followed was, admittedly, off-topic. Because we know that “young people are more mentally and biologically prone to poor judgment”, our response shouldn’t be nearly as severe as it is. These “sexters” should NOT be tried as adults, and the phrase child pornography should hardly enter into the conversation.

    On a side note, never apologize for returning to an argument. The only good way to ever leave an argument is by offering evidence that proves your position or by yielding to the other side. We’re glad to have you back, it makes the process just that much more productive!

  38. The human race has grown soo much that we have started limiting ourselves with laws. This is the end of the free world as we know it. Why just this morning, I noticed Youtube has removed a good percentage of videos for copywrite reasons that were perfectly fine the other day. Just because they’re fan made music videos. It starts with restricting artists for “copywrite” bullshit and arresting children for “pornographic materials”. I can’t believe our world is coming to this. They keep making more laws that supposedly “protect” us from ourselves. After all, we’re just animals with pants.

  39. @MrGiven
    “These “sexters” should NOT be tried as adults” These “sexters” should not be tried. Full stop.
    “child pornography should hardly enter into the conversation”. Hardly? It isn’t child porn so shouldn’t enter the conversation at all.
    “Our response shouldn’t be severe?” huh? severe? our?
    But young people’s lives are being ruined by “our response” and you don’t seem to care. Girls take a topless photo of themeselves and the older one lands in jail? A 13 year old is arrested on kiddie porn charges because someone sent him a self-pic? “Children” put on sex offender registers?
    But your contribution revolves around teenagers’ frontal lobes and not around the power-crazed moralists who have erected these horrible “child protection” laws. The laws are the problem, not the behaviour of teenagers with their cell phones.

  40. The main reason this has all came up is that “children”, that is junior high and high school kids have maliciously sent pics of one boy/girl to to others in retaliation or just plain out meanness. My nephew did this about 4 months ago, he was expelled from school and answered many questions of the prosecutor.

    The kids are also sending vids of themselves from their phones showing them whacking off with and without cum shots. If this is not cp, then I do not know what is.

  41. @KCJoe

    It’s pretty simple:

    Someone abused a child or tricked it somehow into making pictures or videos = We should care

    They have taken photos or videos of themselves unsolicited = we shouldn’t care

  42. Have people forgotten the lessons of the 1930’s? Did they ever learn anything from the US experiment with alcohol prohibition? Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. It has never worked and never will. It doesn’t matter what you are talking about. As soon as you prohibit general society from having access to something that many want, the production and distribution moves into the hands of unscrupulous people with absolutely no morals.

    Making anything illegal simply means that there are zero controls over production, content and risk. Only legalised industries can be regulated and controls enforced. The “war on drugs” is a dismal failure and always will be. The “war on childhood sexuality” is similarly doomed to failure, but the consequences are far greater. A drug addict can get clean and go on to live a useful and productive life, but a person convicted of a child porn offence has their life irrevocably and permanently destroyed.

    In the meantime, the more success law enforcement has in curtailing the availability of CP, the greater value it has and therefore the more incentive to force kids into unsavoury and intensely harmful activities by those who have the mentality of the drug dealer. The solution to preventing kids being abused in the production of CP is to permit those kids who want to make and distribute such material to do so freely. If the “market” is flooded with such material voluntarily produced and distributed, there is no profit in its production for the nasty types.

  43. Sorry, Bill, but what you’re saying makes sense – it’s common sense, and also it’s what anybody with any knowledge would say or do.

    Unfortunately, government policy isn’t driven by knowledge or sense. Today, the British government upgraded the classification of cannabis as a Class B drug – against the advice of their own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This move will undoubtedly be popular with (adult) voters, which is why the government has done it; it can do no conceivable good.

    This change will have a far greater impact on young people than the laws on CP – many hundreds of thousands of them will be criminalized, rather than the mere handful who get done for porn. This illustrates how this discussion seems to be barking up the wrong tree: the CP laws are very old, and were clearly intended for the persecution of dirty old men, and that is still what they are largely used for.

    While there certainly is a ‘war on childhood sexuality’, this is only part of a more generalized and frightening war against the young (see the survey link in my earlier post). I despair for any society which can think of nothing better to do with its future than to demonize it.

  44. (As an aside to Josh, the fact that you publish articles like this one are one of the main reasons I think your blog is worthwhile).

    I haven’t had time to read all the posts here, but this is an issue I have been thinking about for a long time. The child porn laws are justified on the grounds that they “protect” “children”, but this crackdown on child self-porn perverts is the perfect demonstration that they do not. I don’t know when It links in with the concept of the “adolescent sex offender”, who MAY be a child who has been sexually abused and thus becomes sexually active precosiously (i.e. with his/her 8 year old peers), but if you read the “literature”, it can be one of two children of roughly the same age who have sex but where one has more influence, or is smarter, or is stronger, or more intelligent… i.e. more “powerful”. This whole idea of “power” as introduced by Foucault has proved very slippery.

    But self-made child-porn… The European Union has decreed that all EU nations adopt a treaty which defines a child in child porn as a person who is under 18. This must apply, even in Germany. I cannot speak for other countries, but it is a principle of English law that a member of a group intended to be protected by a law cannot be prosecuted under that law (I think the precedent was Tyrrell, but have no way of checking at the moment). So a child who takes photos of him/herself cannot be prosecuted for that act. It is thus also arguable that any child receiving those images similarly cannot be prosecuted, but any “adult” can be.

    They authorities say that child porn ALWAYS causes harm. Therefore, in their conception of the world, sel-made child porn ALWAYS causes harm. If they believe their own propaganda, they MUST act on self-made child porn as well as other-made child porn. And they do believe their own propaganda, because it gives them a very powerful tool in the normalisation of sexuality. Is sexuality natural or is it learned? i.e. is it genetic or is it constructed? The “social” “”sciences” like to believe that it is constructed, which must mean that sexuality is distributed amongst a population somehow. If they get to define what is good and bad sexuality, they can intervene on the grounds of protecting “public morals”.

    Thus get a perfect reason to tinker with a child’s “sexual health”. A child victim is offererd “counselling and support”, which will amount to nothing more than going over and over what happened while implying that the child will be affected for life and needs “professional” care even to be able to cope…. and a “perpetrator” will be punished and treated by such things as sex offender treatement programmes, which are much the same. The perp gets to listen to his peers confess their crimes AND their secret desires AND then their guilt and remorse over and over, and he will also confess and repent over and over.

  45. Commercial child porn on the internet.
    @JoshUnreal

    PORNOGRAPHY
    First, it depends what you mean when you say “pornography”. A lot of the figures bandied about come from the USA and the UK (the non-Josh himself quotes FBI and CEOP!).

    In the US, for an image to be child porn, it has to be lascivious. I believe that this can include focussing on the sexual organs (in particualr the genital region, but in girls also the breast) and the anus. It appears that this can encompass clothed children. I don’t know much about how the law is applied in borderline cases in the US, so I will say no more.

    In the UK, an image that counts as child porn is an “indecent” photgraph OR PSEUDO-PHOTOGRAPH of a child (a person under 18). Indecent means something that would “offend against recognised standards of propriety”. Given this, I strongly suspect that the image (real)Josh has chosen to illustrate this article could count as child porn in the UK.
    The boy in the photograph appears to be under 18, and he appears to be doing something a little indecent (or what some people would find indecent).

    The problems arising from how the concept of indecency is applied in English courts is worthy of an essay of its own, but as a simple example I will steer you towards the image from the Armani advert that appeared in Sunday Times Magazine for an example of what some people can consider to be indecent.

    And as far as the UK authorities are concerned, Wikipedia appears to be a distributor of child porn (the Scorpions album cover).

    So if UK police get to decide what is child porn, there will appear to be more child porn on the Internet than if the number was decided by the USA authorities.

    The UK sources say that a high percentage of the child porn available on the Internet is hosted in USA. They also say that harly any porn is hosted in the UK.

    Look into how many American states have child protection teams, and how many sherrif’s offices have child protection officers, and how many other state organisations have departments to combat child porn (the FBI, postal services, US Customs) and you will learn that the Americans have invested huge resources in fighting child porn.

    To make child porn available commercially, you have to a) advertise it (to get customers) and b) charge for it (to make a profit, and to count as making it commercially available).

    If, as the UK authorities say, a substantial percentage of the child porn available on the Internet comes from the USA, then the USA authorities are getting nowhere in their fight to combat child porn.

    However, child porn is NOT protected by the first amendment (UK authorities say that the American’s are restricted by first amendment freedom of speech rights in their attempts to deal with this “child porn”).

    So either the UK is absurdly fundamentalist about what constitutes child porn, OR the USA (despite devoting a lot of resources to the problem) is totally ineffective at dealing with it (In the UK images of nude children can count as child porn (and yes, people have been convicted of child porn offences in the UK for images involving nude children. In fact, people have been arrested AND convicted on child porn offences for taking photographs of children playing in public places – check out news stories about the “anti-paedophile teams” patrolling Trafalgfar Square!)).

    (real)Josh recently had trouble finding hosting for this site, ISP’s refusing to accept it because it is adult. So where are the hosts that allow child porn websites?

    Destroyer used to have trouble accepting payments via PayPal, they said it was “adult” and refused to allow their services to be used for it. Visa and Mastercard cooperate with the authorities in counteracting child porn. So where are the payment services that allow child porn websites to make a profit.

    It is absurd to suggest that child porn constitues a substantial portion of the porn on the Internet. It is more absurd to suggest that it is a million dollar business.

    ——
    Non-Josh said: “Now don’t you think that’s wrong that these pic gets posted on the web and stored in pedophile websites,and being shared over the web.”

    The justification for the criminalisation of child porn is that it harms children. Not that paedophiles get off on it.
    If a child takes an image of himself and places it on the Internet (see for example the camwhores section on 12chan), how is the child harmed? You appear to believe that the harm comes from the image being used by paedophiles… and indeed in many ways, this distinction appears also in the authorites’ attempts to deal with child porn.

    If Mr Paedo downloads an indecent photograph of a child, he commits an offence.
    If Mr Cop (as a cop, not as a filthy perv doing it in secret in his own home) downloads the same image, he does not commit an offence.
    Why the disparity? What harm is caused by Mr Paedo downloading the image that is not caused when Mr Cop downloads the image?
    If there is no harm when the cop downloads, there is no harm in either case. So, what the child protection people say is “there is harm in both cases, but in the second case it is necessary to suffer the harm.”

  46. Children saved by CEOP.

    (non)Josh said: “And 131 children have been saved by Ceop so bobby I think those kids would disagree with you who has been saved from Ceop.”

    Saved from what? I have been intrigued by this figure for a long time, and I have tried to find out more. Undoubtedly there are a few children who have been in situations where someone is taking photos of them, and this has been stopped when police (acting on CEOP’s advice) arrested the photographer. But when this happens, it is a BIG news story. It supports everything they say. Why don’t they make more of a fanfare about it?

    I suspect that the majority of the children “saved” by CEOP were children of people who were suspected of downloading child porn. Children who were taken away from their parents, or otherwise separated (by the father being taken away).

  47. The laws in germany are updated in 2008, and so we have the same abstruse situation as in the USA. The german gouvernment followed (much more as necessary) a letter of recommendation of the european central institution, which was inspired of the US american law situation. In germany childhood still ends with the 14. birthday, after this day you are called “Jugendlicher” (young person). But the german legislator has invented the concept of “youth porn” as a parallel element of a crime to child porn, and this delict is just equated with child porn! Moreover, if the person who is presented in a pornografic exposure is 18 years or more but looks younger than 18, this will be pursued as youth porn too.

    So the german legislator has opend the full arbitrariness of justice terror as it is usual in the USA. Some, very some people in Germany have given warning of conclude the new law – most of the experts were part of them, but the new law was concluded nearly without public interest.

    Consequently, every normal boy – who possesses a photo of his erigated penis – will become criminel in cause of possession of youth porn at the day of his 18th birthday – the only way to avoid this danger is: He makes it as a gift to his younger sister (who took the photo one year ago).

  48. I noticed no one replied to the most important thing.
    The frontal lobe studies proving kids are less mature than adults is just a myth and poor debunked science.
    There’s no single evidence that links frontal age development (which is different in every person) with maturity which is a relative socially constructed concepts (in a racist society someone with anti-racist argument would be considered immature and his words would be ignored as he still needs to learn how the world goes and so on …)

    The majority of neuroscientists agree that by the age of 13-14 the mental and cognitive potential of a kind is the same of that of whatever adult. Since I know more immature adults than immature kids it is clear to me that our experiences and decisions shape our mind and personality.

    Piaget who believed children go through fixed cognitive development stages has been scientifically disproved many times. He believed that someone younger than 12 can’t have the cognitive ability of abstraction but abstract thinking has been observed in children as young as 4. Debunking his studies showed that cognitive development is not a fixed biological process but you’re as mature as your experience allow you to mature. It’s only a matter of context.
    The person who appears to be the smartest in his natural context will look like an clueless ignorant in a foreign context. This tautology was used with black slaves as well.

    They weren’t “mature” enough because they were not given a chance to freely interact with the world and make personal choices. Why they weren’t given such chance? Because they weren’t ready to make good choice. The very thing you need to prove you can do something is the something you’re not allowed to do.

    There’s a neurologist who invented a test to determine how adult are you. Fortunately “adult” is not used here as a misnomer for a certain orthodox expected behavior which denies all which is beautiful and real in human spontaneity, creativity and interactions with other humans. No, it means possessing that kind of knowledge which empowers you in such a complex fake society. Certain people believe wrongly and because their brain manipulate their memories even for things that happened one year ago in order to fit their memories to their current orthodox brainwashed thinking, that if you’re young you don’t possess the knowledge to make important decision because you won’t understand the ramifications and the consequences. But usually such “important knowledge” is really very trivial stuff and it’s pretty easy to determine whether a person have such knowledge with a couple of fool questions. So it’s also easy not only to understand that many kids have such knowledge but also that many adults don’t have such knowledge, since such kind of maturity (which has nothing to do with cognition, growth, brain size but only with how well you know the world you live in, as would be for an infant) has nothing to do with age past the point where a kid is not anymore a dependent infant.

    I would say that a young kid who simply claims not to know certain things is way more mature than someone still believing that few cherry picked studies (missing the forest for the trees) can make a compelling scientific theory.
    I see maturity and immaturity in people of every kind and age but “adults” (as people who conformed to a certain herd philosophy, behavior, culture) are in my opinion individuals who mostly pretend to be mature, defending their right to superiority with violence and aggressivity, even if empirically they usually know nothing about the concepts they love to promote as a proof of their superior knowledge and intelligence and rarely posses the rationality to make good arguments and defense about the topic they’re discussing. It’s disturbing how the people who love to claim how someone or some particular socially constructed fake group is less mature usually show no sign of maturity in their arguments.

    http://www.kpdq.com/11551480/print/

Leave a Reply