SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by egcagrac0 on Tuesday July 08 2014, @06:50PM
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:01PM
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
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
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
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
(Score: 2) by egcagrac0 on Wednesday July 09 2014, @04:02PM
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
Some would argue that we are edging closer to Utopia:-
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
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
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]:-
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]:-
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