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.
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
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!
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
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”
about 1 year ago
Guys, let’s keep the discussion nice, sober & on topic :)
@John Smith
So true.
about 1 year ago
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?
about 1 year ago
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”.
about 1 year ago
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!
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
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!
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
@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.
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
@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
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
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.
about 1 year ago
(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.
about 1 year ago
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.”
about 1 year ago
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).
about 1 year ago
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).
about 10 months ago
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/
about 10 months ago
http://tinyurl.com/teen-brain-myth-pdf