It has become somewhat difficult to watch the news or read the paper without seeing at least one story about what has been dubiously dubbed “sexting.” Sexting is the practice of trading lewd text messages and/or taking and sending nude pictures of oneself over the phone. The media has decided to make this issue the current hot button.
The reason that “sexting” has become so controversial is because now minors are getting in on the act. To some people, this constitutes a distribution of child pornography.
Technically, they are right, but in principle, not quite. Sexual offenses of this nature, i.e. ones involving the exploitation of a minor, are put in place to protect minors, not to be used against them. Here we have the very laws that are meant to protect minors creating preteen sex offenders. In fact, the youngest sex offender on the books in Kansas is 12 years old.
Whoever is drawing these age lines seems to have forgotten the original purpose for them: to keep adults from exploiting minors. This is the same reason why it is illegal for an adult to physically strike a minor, but two minors hitting each other is just a fight. Under the technicalities of sexual offense laws, a minor hitting him or herself should be guilty of harming a minor. This does not make sense.
These cases need to be taken on an individual basis and not generalized to ridiculous outcomes. There have been cases throughout the United States where teens have been convicted of distribution of child pornography for “sexting.” Others have been convicted of possession for being sent the photos. Technically, this would mean that a 15-year-old girl could be prosecuted for having a nude photo of herself on her iPhone. This is nothing short of ridiculous.
A law that makes sense and should be in place to protect minors is effectively working against them. This is what happens when a law strays horribly far from its original intention.
For the record, “sexting” as it is now known, is nothing new. Cases of this nature extend back almost as far as the first camera phone. It started to become popular with the media once adults got involved and someone got caught.
A recent case here in Oregon involved a 30-year-old man who encouraged underage sex acts to be filmed at a party. These sex acts were then sent around to the friends of the girl involved in the acts through text messaging. This case has little or nothing to do with “sexting” itself, yet that is exactly how the media has pitched it to the public.
This case is about a grown man exploiting a minor and he should be punished accordingly. Bringing the minors into the battle and using the current “sexting” fad to rile up the public is irresponsible on the part of the media and unfair to the minors.
The fact that “sexting” has become such a controversial issue not only shows the tendency of news organizations to participate in fear-mongering, but also the negative American attitude against sex in general, especially underage sex. Blowing this “fad” out of proportion and plastering it all of the news probably contributed to it becoming a fad in the first place.
Portraying sexuality in a negative light and punishing minors for expressing it only gives the impression that sexuality is something that is vulgar, uncouth and to be avoided. This makes teens think that sex is wrong and, therefore, asking questions about it to get some helpful feedback is also wrong. Fostering this kind of attitude toward sex is what allows things like underage sex acts at parties to happen in the first place. Education and conversation is needed, not fear.
Biased media coverage merely contributes to the problem. This can also cause some scared parents to restrict phone usage and privacy with their children instead of engaging in a non-patronizing discussion about sex.
Laws pertaining to sexual offenses are meant to protect minors, not to be used on them unnecessarily. What is needed here is an open dialogue on the subject, not fear mongering and dramatization by the media. A line must be drawn somewhere sensible. Punishing a teenager with life-altering consequences (consequences that are usually uncalled for) merely for being a teenager is excessive and counterproductive.