I spoke too soon yesterday when I labeled a post as follows: Sexting: At long last, a sexual offense not blamed entirely on males. A little research showed that I was wrong. The sexual grievance industry has already entered the fray to prove that even though girls generally initiate "sexting" by sending lewd photos of themselves to their boyfriends, alas, females are actually the victims of this crime.
For example: "Many . . . experts insist the sexting trend hurts teen girls more than boys, fretting that they feel 'pressured; to take and send naked photos. Yet the girls in the Pennsylvania case were charged with 'manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography' while the boys were merely charged with possession. This disparity seems increasingly common. If we are worried about the poor girls pressured into exposing themselves, why are we treating them more harshly than the boys?" So, do you get the implication? Girls are actually the victims of this menace: ". . . girls [are] often bullied into taking, and sharing, explicit pictures of themselves."
Oh, yes, they pay lip service to the fact that girls are technically on the hook here, too. I found this quote in a news story about sexting -- and it's startling that, in 2009, someone would even think he needs to add the last sentence: "[Lyon County Attorney Marc] Goodman wants youngsters aware of the ramifications of their actions, if they are prosecuted and convicted. They would have to register with the state as sexual predators, a distinction they will carry throughout their lives. Girls are included on the list as well as boys." (Emphasis added.)
Gee, you mean girls are actually treated as criminals when they -- you know -- commit crimes? Say it ain't so! Now, whether anybody should be a "criminal" here is another question.
And make no mistake, at least to some degree, girls are being held to some level of responsibility: First case prosecuted in West Mich. is a girl. And that's as it should be -- if the boys are being prosecuted. But double standards that hold boys to far greater responsibility for crime in general seem inevitable in this area, too -- See here : "A teenager in Allen County, Ind., is facing felony obscenity charges for allegedly sending a photo of his genitals to several female classmates. He's expected to receive probation and be ordered to get counseling. In Ohio, a 15-year-old high-school girl who faced charges for sending racy cellphone photos of herself to classmates agreed to a curfew, loss of her cellphone and supervised Internet usage."
Did you get that last one? He's a felon -- and she gets the same punishment Beaver Cleaver would receive for not cleaning up his room. In my review of sexting news stories, I see no evidence for the assertion above that boys are being treated less harshly than the girls. I can't say for certain, but the opposite seems to be true. In any event, the point here is that the rising sentiment seems to be that even though girls are often the initiators, they are not at fault, and they are the ones who are hurt by this crime.
You see, in the brave new world of sexting, the original sender of the racy photo (usually the girl) is to be excused, since she's sending the racy photo to her boyfriend out of affection. The trouble -- the evil, if you will -- creeps into this idyllic setting only when the evil boyfriend decides to share it with his equally evil male friends. See here: "In most cases, it's a girl sending a nude or partial nude picture of herself to someone she is interested in. The situation gets tricky when that receiver forwards the sex-text on and it gets viewed by more than one set of eyes -- especially if the original sender is underage." The males, and their lewd desires, ruin it for everyone.
So here we go. Yet another arena where females are not morally free agents but are subjugated by the patriarchy. Yet another battlefield in the gender wars where the feminists insist not on equality but on moral victory. Sadly, when it comes to sexting, I predict that the inane chivalrous men who think girls need to be protected at all costs by the good and noble menfolk will once again become the feminists' useful idiots. They will join hands with their feminist sisters and loudly sing out that the persons who generally initiate the sexting (the girls) are actually its victims. And, as always, those of us who ask, "what about equality," will be accused of whining.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Right. Here we go again.
I think the theory is, girls really don't want to do this . . . they are only doing it to please their boyfriends, to be popular with the boys, etc. So, in other words, the female desire to gain male affection is invalid, not because the actual conduct to gain the attention is stupid, but because the girl is subjugating herself to a male.
Next time my wife wants me to do some dirty task that I don't want to do, I'll remember this -- since the act is designed to please her, I would only subjugate myself to her if I did it.
I think the criminalization of this stuff between kids is stupid; heck I think charging some 30 year old guy with having a naked pic of his 15 year old girlfriend from when he was a kid is stupid, but it's happened. However so long as the child porn hysteria is going to be legally sanctioned I"m all in favor of equality between the sexes in prosecutions.
Clarence -- I agree with you completely. Sexting puts the constipated, zero tolerance crowd, so fearful of sex (especially male sexuality) in a real tough bind -- to enforce these laws is absurd, but to not enforce them would, they think, let loose all the hobgoblins (no doubt shaped like penises) to destroy our children's morals.
Pierce,
I think more accurately it's that some girls may not be comfortable or want to do such a thing but only do it for the guy's affection or peer pressure (similar to what you said). It's one thing to WANT to do it or do something remedial that you don't want to do, but for a girl to pose naked when you don't want to just to get the guy to like you would rub anyone the wrong way. Not saying that excuses her but still.
Something else too. Should a girl really be punished for posing naked for her boyfriend if he or someone else chooses to send the picture to others? Especially if she did not want it to be shared with others? Then again, if the boyfriend in question is underage himself.....
Once again, I'm not excusing what she did, but if she had no intention of it being shared....
By the way, I also believe that cases like these shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The males, and their lewd desires, ruin it for everyone.
To me desires is no excuse. I know that guys desire girls and all that, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse for a boy to send nude pictures of a girl who had no intention of them being shared. But hey, I'm just going by what I would do in that situation.
But hey, I'm just going by what I would do in that situation.
Maybe I shouldn't phrase it that way. What I should have said is that if I was in that situation, I couldn't imagine sharing naked photos of someone who sent them to me out of affection.
Renee,
I agree with you on the consent thing.
I disagree with you that we should analyze why a girl does something, and be critical of her for it. It is a deeply rooted desire to members of both sexes to attact a partner of the opposite sex. Boys do idiot things for girls, too.
I have no problem with your saying to girls, "don't do it because it's a stupid thing in and of itself." I do have a problem with your saying "don't do it because it is intended to gain a guy's affections." That's the tactic the rad fems take -- encouraging women to be indifferent to men in order to empower women (don't wear make up for men, don't dress for men, don't do anything to impress or gain the favor of a man), despite the fact that such an approach is contrary to millions of years of evolution where women have always done things to attract a mate (and so have guys). That position is grounded in lesbianism. It has no place in heterosexual society.
The girls are sending their naked pictures around because they want sex, just like to boys do; absolutely no difference there, end of discussion.
"The girls are sending their naked pictures around because they want sex, just like to boys do; absolutely no difference there, end of discussion."
Sounds right to me. But for some reason, when the girls do it, it MUST be because they are being coerced by a dreaded male!
How utterly inane. That attitude accomplishes the seemingly impossible task of insulting two genders at one time: First, it trots out the coercive male-as-predator-and-always-out-for-sex stereotype; and second, it suggests females are either too weak or too stupid to act of their own free will.
Renee, what about girls who distribute nude photos their boyfriend's send them without their boyfriend's consent?
"Renee, what about girls who distribute nude photos their boyfriend's send them without their boyfriend's consent?"
Of course it doesn't do anything to a boy's psyche to have girls he never intended to see his naked picture laughing about the size of his dick. Only girls are hurt by sexting.
Last two Anons: excellent points. And you hit the nail on the head. These problems are ONLY looked at through a gynocentric lens.
When a girl sends a photo of this nature she is the active member and he is the passive.
A prostitute is active,her john passive.
A girl can egg a guy into a fight,this is what most fights are about ,after the pub closes,he is then active and she is passive.
In all three cases the male is held as culpable.
Renee, what about girls who distribute nude photos their boyfriend's send them without their boyfriend's consent?
That's obvious, it's just as awful.
Pierce,
I do have a problem with your saying "don't do it because it is intended to gain a guy's affections."
No that's not what I said, at least that's not what I intended to say. I meant more like, someone shouldn't do stupid stuff, things you know is wrong, and/or things you don't want to do just to please someone else or get someone to like you.
Sounds right to me. But for some reason, when the girls do it, it MUST be because they are being coerced by a dreaded male!
How utterly inane. That attitude accomplishes the seemingly impossible task of insulting two genders at one time: First, it trots out the coercive male-as-predator-and-always-out-for-sex stereotype; and second, it suggests females are either too weak or too stupid to act of their own free will.
I completely agree with this. It's like that idea that the only reason any woman has an active sex life is because something is wrong/she has issues but if the person is a guy, then it's consider natural.
This reminds me of an old joke:
"When a woman gets undressed with the curtains open and a man sees her - he is a peeping tom.
When a man gets undressed with the curtains open and a woman sees him - he is charged with indecent exposure."
It is a simple double standard: in any sexual encounter - blame the man (or the boy).
Phantom,
This type stuff is, at bottom line, due to the demonization of male sexuality. This demonization goes all the way back in history, at least to the beginning of Christianity - "the Immaculate Conception" and all that stuff.
Post a Comment