Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Tuesday July 08 2014, @06:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the educate-or-keep-them-ignorant? dept.

The Daily Mail reports that children in the UK may receive school lessons about sexting.

Children as young as nine could be taught in school about the dangers of sexting.

New sex education packs produced by a charity warn girls not to send 'sexy and pouting' pictures using their mobile phones.

They suggest telling children of seven not to email photos of themselves in swimming costumes in case they fall into the hands of paedophiles.

The article goes on to say:

The lessons are part of a pack, launched last week, that schools can download for £299 a year.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said it was 'symptomatic of a mindset that thinks young children should take responsibility for their own safety, when in reality it is the job of parents to protect them'.

He added: 'To address such issues in the classroom runs the risk of introducing ideas and thoughts that many children are not ready for. In some cases [it] is likely to breed an unhealthy distrust and suspicion of adults.'

Meanwhile, UK polticians are calling for lessons to "tackle the rise of sexist abuse fuelled by internet porn" and the UK, Australia and the Philippines are currently engulfed in pedophile scandals.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by egcagrac0 on Tuesday July 08 2014, @06:50PM

    by egcagrac0 (2705) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @06:50PM (#66111)

    Instead of cautioning against posting risque pictures of 9 year old girls online (or via phone, or..), perhaps they should be taught how every networked device they're likely to use for the rest of their lives will be monitored, and that they shouldn't say anything that they don't want others to hear.

    Privacy in general, instead of just keeping your privates private.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:01PM (#66120)

    Yes. The whole sexting hysteria is just overblown moral panic [cracked.com] from old people who didn't grow up with cellphones. It's just the modern version of flirting. [umich.edu] The next generation has a lot more to worry about from pervasive surveillance than they do from teenage sexual expression.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:36PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:36PM (#66179) Homepage

      It's not so much "moral panic," a lot of those assholes are just jealous that they never got to have that kind of fun as kids. Some of those assholes also surround themselves with kids, coaching girls' swim of volleyball teams, to proclaim how much they care about their community while providing cover for their perving and dick-kneading. This is really about their own self-loathing and guilt issues rather than "protecting the children."

      It's why we have things like Purity Balls [wikipedia.org] here -- "If I can't have you underage, nobody will, daughter dearest!"

      The only actual moral panic comes from alarmist housewives (aka "useful idiots") who are afraid of every piece of bullshit they read in the news.

      • (Score: 2) by mrider on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:38PM

        by mrider (3252) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:38PM (#66180)

        Wow, don't hold back!

        --

        Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"

        Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."

      • (Score: 2) by egcagrac0 on Wednesday July 09 2014, @03:50AM

        by egcagrac0 (2705) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @03:50AM (#66343)

        just jealous that they never got to have that kind of fun as kids.

        Polaroid made an instant camera and instant film, back in the day (1948 until digital cameras took over). No need to share the pictures with people at the drugstore, 90 seconds and you've got a print to go and fap with later.

        If they didn't get to have that kind of fun, it's because they weren't trying, not because it wasn't feasible to take a nekkid selfie and slip it to someone with a note.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09 2014, @01:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09 2014, @01:24PM (#66499)
          They might have been up to that fun. It's just harder to distribute 1000000 copies of the polaroid picture to "everyone" overnight.
          • (Score: 2) by egcagrac0 on Wednesday July 09 2014, @04:02PM

            by egcagrac0 (2705) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @04:02PM (#66581)

            Right. The concern shouldn't be "don't share pictures of your butt", so much as "the modern technology for sharing a picture of your butt with that friend of yours makes it very easy for them to share it with everyone else in the world, and also makes it possible for people who you didn't want to see a picture of your butt to see it".

            There is a valid concern for the "... with a computer!" part here, but it's that the people involved don't necessarily understand the implications of the underlying technology - not that sharing a picture of your butt with someone is intrinsically wrong.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Tuesday July 08 2014, @09:02PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @09:02PM (#66198) Journal

      Some would argue that we are edging closer to Utopia:-

      In choosing their wives they use a method that would appear to us very absurd and ridiculous, but it is constantly observed among them, and is accounted perfectly consistent with wisdom. Before marriage some grave matron presents the bride, naked, whether she is a virgin or a widow, to the bridegroom, and after that some grave man presents the bridegroom, naked, to the bride. We, indeed, both laughed at this, and condemned it as very indecent. But they, on the other hand, wondered at the folly of the men of all other nations, who, if they are but to buy a horse of a small value, are so cautious that they will see every part of him, and take off both his saddle and all his other tackle, that there may be no secret ulcer hid under any of them, and that yet in the choice of a wife, on which depends the happiness or unhappiness of the rest of his life, a man should venture upon trust, and only see about a handsbreadth of the face, all the rest of the body being covered, under which may lie hid what may be contagious as well as loathsome. All men are not so wise as to choose a woman only for her good qualities, and even wise men consider the body as that which adds not a little to the mind, and it is certain there may be some such deformity covered with clothes as may totally alienate a man from his wife, when it is too late to part with her; if such a thing is discovered after marriage a man has no remedy but patience; they, therefore, think it is reasonable that there should be good provision made against such mischievous frauds.

      Thomas Moore also had relevant stuff to say about identikit malls and serving wenches in food halls.

      --
      1702845791×2
      • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday July 09 2014, @07:38AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @07:38AM (#66399)

        Wouldn't it be better to go on a few dates, get to know the other's personality (since most of the time they won't be naked, and you aren't allowed to duct tape their mouth shut), and then if you can stand to be around them have sex a few times to ensure compatibility in that department too?

        More worryingly it sounds like Moore is saying unattractive women are worthless... Maybe he always had sex with the lights on, but when it comes to enjoyment looks are just a nice bonus.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 09 2014, @08:22AM

          by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @08:22AM (#66409) Journal

          Thomas More definitely wasn't a sex-before-marriage kind of guy. However, he saw beyond looks. From http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2130/2130-h/2130-h.htm [gutenberg.org]:-

          More's earnest character caused him while studying law to aim at the subduing of the flesh, by wearing a hair shirt, taking a log for a pillow, and whipping himself on Fridays.

          and he was beheaded because he didn't switch from Catholic to Protestant or endorse Henry VIII's divorce. From http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/morebio.htm [luminarium.org]:-

          In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17. More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded alongside Bishop Fisher on July 6, 1535. More's final words on the scaffold were: "The King's good servant, but God's First." More was beatified in 1886 and canonized by the Catholic Church as a saint by Pope Pius XI in 1935.

          I'm unable to find the reference, but I read that it was only possible to determine Thomas More's age by his hands and that he and his wife were like teenage lovers. The implication was that his wife was less attractive but he saw something deeper.

          He would have very probably had sex with the lights off but only because candles were expensive.

          --
          1702845791×2