A survey of Australian high school students has found that sending and receiving sexually explicit images and messages is a normal part of most teenage relationships.
La Trobe university researchers interviewed more than 2,000 16 to 18-year-old students across the country as part of a study commissioned by the Federal Government.
more…
Sounds like society attempting to control nature
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sounds like society attempting to control nature
That’s not a bad definition of religion.
The Americans are trying to make sexting illegal
I believe that two young people communicating should be free to communicate
these sort of laws are really intruding into young peoples lives and personal space
An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rights
Laws cannot control human nature on that level
Teens will ignore it
captain_spalding said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sounds like society attempting to control nature
That’s not a bad definition of religion.
Yes, your right, it does.
An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rights
what rights are these and where can i find them?
CrazyNeutrino said:
An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rights
Young women should have the right to send me all the sexually-oriented texts they wish.
I would support any campaign that promulgated that right.
Maybe teens should be required to put condoms over their phones while sexting
:)
>An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rights
Isn’t it just the normal law prohibiting pornographic images of people under 18?
ChrispenEvan said:
An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rightswhat rights are these and where can i find them?
Thats a good question
this is an example of technology intermixing with young human behavior which really is part of natural communication between two people
I guess the United Nations would be a good place to start looking
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
back to your question
We have parliaments state and federal that make laws every year but I dont receive any laws or updates in the mail about them
I receive no law books, no law guides, just bits and pieces over the media and internet
Not good enough really
We elect people to go into parliament to make laws (and most of these candidates that we vote for have no legal training, only a few do) and then we dont really see these laws that they make
other Human Rights Websites
Australian Human Rights Commission
Human Rights Wikipedia Article
United Nations: What are human rights?
ABC Human Rights Article
Human Rights Commission Victoria
Human Rights Google Search
United Nations
What you can do is educate young people and the best one can hope for
Bubblecar said:
>An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rightsIsn’t it just the normal law prohibiting pornographic images of people under 18?
I’m not sure, I know some American states are prosecuting underage teens for sexting one another with text, or text and /or underage teen nudity images, there is a difference between that and underage teens handing adult pornographic images
If someone can clarify it, please do
CrazyNeutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
>An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rightsIsn’t it just the normal law prohibiting pornographic images of people under 18?
I’m not sure, I know some American states are prosecuting underage teens for sexting one another with text, or text and /or underage teen nudity images, there is a difference between that and underage teens handing adult pornographic images
If someone can clarify it, please do
the real problem is that they were all the outcasts of Britain, the religious nutters unwanted by the state that was glad to see the back of them – the hence the mad laws and decrees.
I wonder if Wookie is descendant from a long line of nutters?
wookiemeister said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
>An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rightsIsn’t it just the normal law prohibiting pornographic images of people under 18?
I’m not sure, I know some American states are prosecuting underage teens for sexting one another with text, or text and /or underage teen nudity images, there is a difference between that and underage teens handing adult pornographic images
If someone can clarify it, please do
the yanks are madthe real problem is that they were all the outcasts of Britain, the religious nutters unwanted by the state that was glad to see the back of them – the hence the mad laws and decrees.
Correct, a lot of Yanks are mad.
:)
Witty Rejoinder said:
I wonder if Wookie is descendant from a long line of nutters?
I leave crazy to the professionals
CrazyNeutrino said:
wookiemeister said:
CrazyNeutrino said:I’m not sure, I know some American states are prosecuting underage teens for sexting one another with text, or text and /or underage teen nudity images, there is a difference between that and underage teens handing adult pornographic images
If someone can clarify it, please do
the yanks are madthe real problem is that they were all the outcasts of Britain, the religious nutters unwanted by the state that was glad to see the back of them – the hence the mad laws and decrees.
Correct, a lot of Yanks are mad.
:)
child porn is child porn no matter what age the sender. the laws or proposed laws or measures are to protect vulnerable people from being exploited.kids are notorious for not being outcome aware. who knows whose hands some of these images end up in.
wookiemeister said:
How it translates is this: The USA votes only every four years. It is non-compulsory voting. Foreign policy (or indeed any other political policy) is not discussed on TV every day like it is here. Add into that mix the all-ages, whole-of-life indoctrination of “land of the free”, flag saluting etc and that’s what you get.
CrazyNeutrino said:
wookiemeister said:the yanks are mad
the real problem is that they were all the outcasts of Britain, the religious nutters unwanted by the state that was glad to see the back of them – the hence the mad laws and decrees.
Correct, a lot of Yanks are mad.
:)
oh don’t get me wrong, the ones you might meet overseas are very amusing fellows, how this translates to their foreign policy I have never been able to fathom
Sorry: should’ve been in chat.
ChrispenEvan said:
child porn is child porn no matter what age the sender. the laws or proposed laws or measures are to protect vulnerable people from being exploited.kids are notorious for not being outcome aware. who knows whose hands some of these images end up in.
don’t laugh , this would be the exact way things would happen
the roman catholic church has been fondling kids for years and got away with it and we are going after some easy target
Michael V said:
wookiemeister said:How it translates is this: The USA votes only every four years. It is non-compulsory voting. Foreign policy (or indeed any other political policy) is not discussed on TV every day like it is here. Add into that mix the all-ages, whole-of-life indoctrination of “land of the free”, flag saluting etc and that’s what you get.
CrazyNeutrino said:Correct, a lot of Yanks are mad.
:)
oh don’t get me wrong, the ones you might meet overseas are very amusing fellows, how this translates to their foreign policy I have never been able to fathom
so we are going to throw kids into gaols with sex offenders because they sent someone a picture of themselves?
slippery slope logical fallacy
slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
wookiemeister said:
so we are going to throw kids into gaols with sex offenders because they sent someone a picture of themselves?
You can get charged for possession but not production. There has been talk of changing the law so that juveniles are treated differently to mature aged offenders.
ChrispenEvan said:
so we are going to throw kids into gaols with sex offenders because they sent someone a picture of themselves?slippery slope logical fallacy
children are an easy target
you bring in some law on people that have no voting rights without a skerrick of common sense in the mix
how about we keep the kiddy fiddlers LOCKED UP instead?
wookiemeister said:
ChrispenEvan said:
so we are going to throw kids into gaols with sex offenders because they sent someone a picture of themselves?slippery slope logical fallacy
this is management think
Michael V said:
wookiemeister said:
ChrispenEvan said:
so we are going to throw kids into gaols with sex offenders because they sent someone a picture of themselves?slippery slope logical fallacy
this is management think
What?
It’s Wak World remember…
this is management think
strawman logical fallacy.
strawman
You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
From reading this thread it’s fairly obvious to me that there aren’t too many of you that have teenage children.
The whole sexting thing is a massive issue, not so much that is is an example of ‘child porn’ (in the traditional definition of the term) but the real problem is there being an inherent misunderstanding of the damage images like this can have on their adult lives. There is also the problem of ex boyfriends or girlfriends using the images in acts of revenge.
Applications like snapchat scare the absolute crap out of me…
i agree diddly and i don’t have any kids.
poikilotherm said:
Michael V said:
wookiemeister said:this is management think
What?
It’s Wak World remember…
wookiemeister said:
Kindly put this stuff in another thread, rather than trashing this one, thanks. I’ve been responding to other post of yours that change the OP’s discussion in chat.
poikilotherm said:
Michael V said:What?
It’s Wak World remember…
care to make any comment on SV40 and the polio vaccine?
ChrispenEvan said:
this is management thinkstrawman logical fallacy.
strawman
You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
how about managing the child molesters first?
the person that killed Daniel morcombe had already attacked victims well before being convicted for killing Daniel
lets manage the problem constructively before we bring in any more laws that don’t actually “protect” anyone
Michael V said:
wookiemeister said:Kindly put this stuff in another thread, rather than trashing this one, thanks. I’ve been responding to other post of yours that change the OP’s discussion in chat.
poikilotherm said:It’s Wak World remember…
care to make any comment on SV40 and the polio vaccine?
Michael V said:
wookiemeister said:Kindly put this stuff in another thread, rather than trashing this one, thanks. I’ve been responding to other post of yours that change the OP’s discussion in chat.
poikilotherm said:It’s Wak World remember…
care to make any comment on SV40 and the polio vaccine?
we are getting all worked up about text when you’ve got people running around killing kids and molesting them scot free
funny old world ain’t it?
try to get a cogent argument together wookie and we might discuss it. but you are hopeless at keeping on track, especially when you’ve been backed into a corner. you really need to work on that.
then tell that person to concentrate on the issue instead of concentrating on me personally
wow, i thought showing the flaws in your argument was concentrating on the issue.
wookiemeister said:
we are getting all worked up about text when you’ve got people running around killing kids and molesting them scot freefunny old world ain’t it?
wookie likes to be the hero.
Witty Rejoinder said:
wookiemeister said:
we are getting all worked up about text when you’ve got people running around killing kids and molesting them scot freefunny old world ain’t it?
Are you suggesting that we can’t do both at the same time? Yes it is a funny old world you live in.
ChrispenEvan said:
wookie likes to be the hero.
wookiemeister said:
we can’t even keep them locked up, exactly how do you propose anything worthwhile will ever come from yet another bullshit law?
So you think nothing should be done about teens texting until paedophiles receive life sentences for their crimes?
nah, you want to be the hero. always the one to save the day. nobody else as competent as you.
Witty Rejoinder said:
wookiemeister said:we can’t even keep them locked up, exactly how do you propose anything worthwhile will ever come from yet another bullshit law?
So you think nothing should be done about teens texting until paedophiles receive life sentences for their crimes?
as I said – management think
the only thing management understands is paperwork and easy fixes for problems they have created
its easier to ban sexting than it is keeping violent and dangerous off the streets
Witty Rejoinder said:
wookiemeister said:we can’t even keep them locked up, exactly how do you propose anything worthwhile will ever come from yet another bullshit law?
So you think nothing should be done about teens texting until paedophiles receive life sentences for their crimes?
as I said – management think
the only thing management understands is paperwork and easy fixes for problems they have created
its easier to ban sexting than it is keeping violent and dangerous off the streets
we can’t even keep them locked up, exactly how do you propose anything worthwhile will ever come from yet another bullshit law?
black-or-white
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.
ChrispenEvan said:
nah, you want to be the hero. always the one to save the day. nobody else as competent as you.
its start to make sense isn’t it?
how come sexting is so important when we can’t keep a lid on all the nutters running around killing / molesting kids?
lets tackle the real problems not problems with SMS
a few more to go wookie but you’re doing a sterling job so far.
i’m not angry. you can tell cos i’m not double posting.
ChrispenEvan said:
we can’t even keep them locked up, exactly how do you propose anything worthwhile will ever come from yet another bullshit law?black-or-white
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.
have all the law you won’t it won’t save you
wookiemeister said:
ChrispenEvan said:
we can’t even keep them locked up, exactly how do you propose anything worthwhile will ever come from yet another bullshit law?black-or-white
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.
it won’t be too long after the new texting laws and some kids will be killed or molested and guess what – the person has already done it multiple times and gotten away with it in courthave all the law you won’t it won’t save you
it won’t be too long after the new texting laws and some kids will be killed or molested and guess what – the person has already done it multiple times and gotten away with it in court
have all the law you won’t it won’t save you
hmmmm maybe the no true scotsman logical fallacy.
ChrispenEvan said:
it won’t be too long after the new texting laws and some kids will be killed or molested and guess what – the person has already done it multiple times and gotten away with it in courthave all the law you won’t it won’t save you
hmmmm maybe the no true scotsman logical fallacy.
and you’ve probably committed this one too.
tu quoque
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation.
Did they survey adults too, to see if it is now a normal part of adult dating.
I’ve even had a knock-back via explicit text message.
party_pants said:
Did they survey adults too, to see if it is now a normal part of adult dating.I’ve even had a knock-back via explicit text message.
Was there an odd placed mouse trap?
wookiemeister said:
don’t be angry
its start to make sense isn’t it?
how come sexting is so important when we can’t keep a lid on all the nutters running around killing / molesting kids?
lets tackle the real problems not problems with SMS
Again you say it is one or the other. You really need to work on your debating style if you don’t want to be ridiculed.
Witty Rejoinder said:
wookiemeister said:don’t be angry
its start to make sense isn’t it?
how come sexting is so important when we can’t keep a lid on all the nutters running around killing / molesting kids?
lets tackle the real problems not problems with SMS
Again you say it is one or the other. You really need to work on your debating style if you don’t want to be ridiculed.
poikilotherm said:
party_pants said:
Did they survey adults too, to see if it is now a normal part of adult dating.I’ve even had a knock-back via explicit text message.
Was there an odd placed mouse trap?
Not that I could see.
Maybe there should be made a phone for people under 18 that has only two functions; call home and receive call from home.
No camera, no sms messages, no internet browsing.i have a phone like that. cost me $23.
My sister doesn’t let her kids have a mobile phone. If they want one they have to pay for it all themselves, phone, credit etc. Which means not till they are old enough to have a part-time job and some income.
Bubblecar said:
>An example of conservative laws going too far violating young people’s rightsIsn’t it just the normal law prohibiting pornographic images of people under 18?
Yes, sexually explicit under-age images are covered by existing child pornography laws, but the situation for text-only sexting without embedded or attached images is not so clear, and it’s not easy to do searches on. I can’t find any references for text-only sexting being prosecuted in Australia, but who knows what they do in the US Bible Belt…
However, the article linked in the OP doesn’t recommend tightening the existing laws: it suggests that we might consider debating the possibility of relaxing the laws a little so that kids who get into a bit of innocent sexting with each other aren’t classed as child pornographers.
From the article:
Lead researcher Professor Anne Mitchell, who has conducted the study since 1992, says for young people, sexting is just a part of their sexual relationship.“Given that it’s against the law, I think we have thoroughly lost that battle for young people,” she said.
“It’s just a part of a sexual relationship, part of courtship, now.”
Professor Mitchell says she would not go as far as recommending that sending explicit photos and videos to people under the age of 18 should be decriminalised, but she does think it should be up for debate.
“Of course harm can come to young people if these texts are sent far and wide but we found very low rates of what we’d call cyber bullying,” she said.
“We’re suggesting that for most young people this behaviour is really unproblematic and just kept within their sexual relationship.”
diddly-squat said:
The whole sexting thing is a massive issue, not so much that is is an example of ‘child porn’ (in the traditional definition of the term) but the real problem is there being an inherent misunderstanding of the damage images like this can have on their adult lives. There is also the problem of ex boyfriends or girlfriends using the images in acts of revenge.
I agree that underage sexting can be problematic primarily because it puts young people into a vulnerable situation. But I think we need a more subtle tool to deal with teen-to-teen sexting than the blunt application of child porn laws. Of course, if a 3rd party gets a hold of such images & distributes them as child porn, they should certainly feel the full weight of the law.
As for the revenge thing, I suspect that the reality may not be a bad as it potentially could be (as the article linked in the OP suggests). If everybody in a kid’s social circle is sexting, then everyone is equally vulnerable, so you get a MAD situation.
Possibly it is that ‘age-appropriateness’ is diluted somewhat by the medium, ease of contact, familiarity minus the usual physical realities of relationship buildings might go circumvented, but then that could go the other way too and flirting is kept just that, nothing more.
Sixteen years of age kids are well on their way to taking some responsibility for their own social and private doings (dealing with and learning of the complexities of life), perhaps the more interesting question is of those of this age and their influence on much younger people, below sixteen.
I mean part of age-appropriateness is about being careful so as not to inflict (even incidently or accidently) whatever on those younger or less developed or developing at a different rate.
So really a better question might be of the extent age-appropriateness is distorted by technology.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sending and receiving sexually explicit messages a normal part of teenage relationships, survey findsA survey of Australian high school students has found that sending and receiving sexually explicit images and messages is a normal part of most teenage relationships.
La Trobe university researchers interviewed more than 2,000 16 to 18-year-old students across the country as part of a study commissioned by the Federal Government.
more…
hey, wait… so i was a normal teen after all?!
fresnel_chick said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sending and receiving sexually explicit messages a normal part of teenage relationships, survey findsA survey of Australian high school students has found that sending and receiving sexually explicit images and messages is a normal part of most teenage relationships.
La Trobe university researchers interviewed more than 2,000 16 to 18-year-old students across the country as part of a study commissioned by the Federal Government.
more…
hey, wait… so i was a normal teen after all?!
Yeh and personally I am glad you were…
Wait what?
Dropbear said:
fresnel_chick said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sending and receiving sexually explicit messages a normal part of teenage relationships, survey findsA survey of Australian high school students has found that sending and receiving sexually explicit images and messages is a normal part of most teenage relationships.
La Trobe university researchers interviewed more than 2,000 16 to 18-year-old students across the country as part of a study commissioned by the Federal Government.
more…
hey, wait… so i was a normal teen after all?!
Yeh and personally I am glad you were…
Wait what?
Bahahahaha!