About Me

My photo
Am I a superhero? Or just a lunatic that wears a cape...and rants?

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Can You Sext me Now? (coming soon to a Verizon commercial near you)

Vermont's State Slogan is currently: Vermont, Naturally. Which is pretty fucking stupid to begin with, but in light of the states current attempts to legalize 'sexting' between teens ranging in age from 13-18, they should change their slogan to something like: Vermont is for pedophiles, or, Vermont, a place where your kids can roam free...and naked. What the fuck are they thinking? 13 year olds?

For those of you who don't know what 'sexting' is, it is the exchange of nude photos/video through cell phones. So, basically, its the free transfer of porn from one person to another that the state thinks is a good idea to open up to kids who just barely learned where their 'naughty parts' are and what they do! Does anyone else see a problem with this? I don't know if making this legal will cause the cell phone waves to become flooded with nudey pics, but I do know that kids are less likely to do shit when there is a fear instilled in them over the legality of their actions. SO, for arguements sake, lets say that this rule passes and kids start sending each other photos of their respective innys and outeys. After a while, photos of these kids' junk are bound to get into the hands of adult perverts.

If there ever was an opening for a HUGE influx of child porn to hit the Net and get into the hands of pedophiles, its a ruling like this. Not to mention that if this ruling passes and pedophiles are caught with child porn, there will be legal loopholes that scumbag lawyers will be able to angle and use to get hard sex offenders off (pun, pun). Now, these pedophiles know where all the 'free spirited kids' live and where they are least likely to be charged. Inevitable? No, but in the equation: nude kids + self shot photos/videos + legal loopholes = a pedophiles wet dream; definitely true. The good news in all of this is that if Vermont's job market is in dire need of crossing guards, or ice cream men, or party clowns, or candy store owners, or people who are interested of financing used vans with blacked out windows; they may soon fill their quotas.

On a side note. I wonder if Verizon will get into the mix and add monthly Sext messaging plans to their contracts...

14 comments:

  1. Well since I am 100% positive child pornography is a Federal Offense, I do not think Vermonsters will be able to have a law saying it is ok. The real problem is that paretns can't control their kids. In the past most TWO Bergen county teens have been caught for sharing lewd underage self portraits. I, as much as the next person enjoyed trying to look at, touch, feel, taste, grope, massage every naughty part possible of the opposite sex when I was a tween, but to actually have photo evidence of this act is just beyond me. These kids are oversexed and over stimulated. These damn hippies in vermont don't believe in sports and maybe that's why their kids have too much energy to waste on taking naked photo and sending them on their cell phones.

    And by the way.. why the hell do 13 year olds have cell phones. I didn't get a beeper till I was 16, and even then you had then use a quarter and go to a payphone to find out what they wanted... Yet I digress...
    This is ridiculous, and just more proof positive that the liberals are out of their mind...

    ReplyDelete
  2. hah..true, but it is up to the states to decide what age is the legal age for sexual consent. For instance, in Georgia its 16.
    Yea, stupid kids with their cell phones and their BETAs, and their phonographs...

    ReplyDelete
  3. In Texas it's 17. In NJ it can be as low as 15. The point is, if the person says "I'm ok with having sex." Than their parents turn around and charge suit, than it's not really the "adult"'s fault.

    Is an adult supposed to prey on little children? Of course not; but if a 14 year old takes a bus down two states to meet up with a 40 y/o, you can't tell me the 14 y/o shouldn't get in just as much trouble.

    My problem with this all is this: It's ok for a 41 y/o man to have sex with an 18 year old, but not ok for a 40 y/o man to have sex with a 17 y/o? Time is irrelevant.

    A 17 y/o's girl's birthday could be May 3rd 12:00est. Now it's May 2nd 11pm cst, but she can't have sex with any of the 25 y/o Texan men. Even though if she was in a different state she can.

    If these pedo's really have a problem getting their rocks off, there's lolicon. I don't understand it, but you can't control what you're attracted to. That's just life. BiLOLogy if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Broloth- I agree with what you are saying for the most part, BUT no, a 14 year old should not get in as much trouble as the 41 year old as in your example. Should there be consequences to the 14 year olds actions? Sure, but the consequences should not be as harsh on them as they are on the old man. Teenagers are morons - partially through their own fault and partially through lack of life experience. the 41 year old should of course be charged more harshly because pedophilia is not only one of the sickest crimes out there but also one that is NOT correctable. Being a stupid teen is a lesser, more correctable crime.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but what defines pedophilia? Jews are adults at 13. The age of consent should not be as high as it is. Yes pedophilia is wrong (yet not one of the sickest crimes out there, see: necrophilia) but wrong in the eyes of who? Puberty should be the legal age of consent in my opinion, when their bodies are mature enough. Their minds may not mature until they're 25 - 40 years old (see: Michael Jackson). How is something they can't control such a harsh crime? That's just like making homosexuality a crime. Rape has harsh enough penalties as it is. Someone who rapes a 21 year old and gets life in prison won't get in much more trouble if the girl was 14, or 8, or 1. Rape is rape. Statutory rape is too unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Religious TRADITION aside. Jews still have to follow the laws that govern the nation in which they live. It doesn't matter what an individual thinks the law should be. The law is what it is and it needs to either be adhered to or through the power of numbers against it, changed. Yes, necrophilia is heinous and disgusting, but the victim in that crime doesn't have a chance of becoming emotionally scarred as in the case with pedophilia. You can't have mass regulation (law) based on individual ability to be responsible OR individual development. Society can't function that way. Therefore, making the age of consent 'puberty' is not possible. Aside from the fact that it is incredibly ridiculous to think that puberty is a good gauge for an individual's ability to properly weigh a decision such as sexual consent. You are right about this though, pedophiles can't control themselves; and they are almost always repeat offenders, therefore, they should not be allowed to function in society after they are exposed (haha). To compare this mental sickness to homosexuality is beyond comprehension and has no merit what so ever. Homosexuality isn't a sickness it is genetics (not inherited genetics, but chromosomal). Rape (other than statutory - in the cases where age was not known) DOES NOT have harsh enough penalties. Once a violent sex offender, always a violent sex offender and the mental illness that pedophiles have fall more in line with that; therefore they need to be dealt with accordingly.
    As for "age of mental maturity", yes this varies and is also a relative term. Regardless of this fact there are no such things as mentally matured 13 year olds, there are just 13 year olds that are mature for there age. Either way, an adult has no business engaging in sexual activity with one.
    If for some reason you are having trouble understanding how screwed up this is then I'm surprised. Nonetheless, the key concept from the tirade was that Vermont is trying to make it legal for little kids to share naked pics of themselves over their cell phones. Just another step down the standard ladder toward hedonism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the record, I'm looking at this from a logic vs. illogic stand point. No emotions or values are put into my argument. Just logic. Also, I am not for pedophilia.

    In regards to "Aside from the fact that it is incredibly ridiculous to think that puberty is a good gauge for an individual's ability to properly weigh a decision such as sexual consent." The same could be said about someone who IS underage who CAN make that decision, the adult in question gets in trouble regardless.

    "You are right about this though, pedophiles can't control themselves; and they are almost always repeat offenders, therefore, they should not be allowed to function in society after they are exposed (haha)." So a human being is immediately deemed less of a human because of something they can't control. Like I said before, this is like outlawing homosexuality, being black, being a guy, having AIDS, having cancer. I'm not saying what they're doing is right, but viewing them as less of a being than humans because of something they control is playing God, and in turn, equally wrong.

    "Rape (other than statutory - in the cases where age was not known) DOES NOT have harsh enough penalties." I fully agree. Sadly, with such a grey word as rape, it could be hard to determine if the girl is telling the truth or not.
    My solution to all this problems. Issuing everyone Dr. Manhattan as a lawyer. Once we have this we can make a minimum sentence life; and justice will be served.

    "As for "age of mental maturity", yes this varies and is also a relative term. Regardless of this fact there are no such things as mentally matured 13 year olds, there are just 13 year olds that are mature for there age. Either way, an adult has no business engaging in sexual activity with one."
    In regards to this. My problem with this is, how is a 15 in Indiana IMMEDIATELY deemed more mentally and physically mature than a 17 year old in North Dakota? What if that 15 year old didn't have puberty yet? Than the law is contradicting itself.

    I have no problem understanding any of this. It's just illogical. Am I offended by pedos? Yes. But my girlfriend was 18 when I was 16. Yet nothing wrong happened. Was it illegal? Technically. How come it isn't more illegal for us now that we're 20 and 22? Were we more physically mature? No. That's what half the problem is. Physical maturity. A young girl at 15 can say she's 18, have sex with a guy who's 20. That 15 year old's parents charge the guy, now his life is messed up FOREVER, and none of it was his fault. THAT is what I have a problem understanding. THAT is the problem I want to fix

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am speaking sensibly, not out of emotion. You are making invalid arguments, not logical ones by any means. When you have kids, and they hit puberty, you'd be okay with them sexing it up?
    I never said that pedos should be treated as less than human (even though I think they are scum). BUT they certainly should not be able to operate in society. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Perhaps, you could make the argument that they are criminally insane and, therefore, should be facilitated in that manner; but in NO WAY is that playing God. Should we not keep our citizens safe from criminals/criminally insane? Just because it is something they "can't help" does not make it anywhere near the same as any of the other things you mentioned. NONE of the other things you mentioned are mental conditions! Where is the logic in this argument? The people you mentioned: homosexuals, blacks, guys, AIDS patients, cancer patients aren't even things you can group together to make a logical point. You are comparing things that don't help validate the point you are trying to make.

    I agree with you that the state to state variation for legal age of consent is illogical. A determination such as this should be universal throughout the country, what ever that age is. I don't know that anyone can say definitively what that should be...I think common sense can tell us, for the most part, what it shouldn't be.

    If you believe the points I am making are illogical then, no, you don't understand it. and I suggest you bone up on some genetics and psychology texts and get back to me.

    You keep bringing up things like you and your girlfriend or teens who are mature as support for your argument with regard to laws you see unjust. But, those supporting arguments, are not truly in keeping with the topic. Pedophilia, generally, is a term reserved for those who act on sexual urges toward children and/or intentionally seek out children. From a legal stand point add: -seek children under the local age of consent. None of your support fits this.

    Is the law perfect, NO. Does it make some sense, YES. There are ways to improve it.

    And still...the main point of my initial blog was not the pedophiles but some Vermonters total disregard for logic and child safety.

    This is getting boring...neither of us are going to fold...

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "When you have kids, and they hit puberty, you'd be okay with them sexing it up?" No, when I have kids and they turn 20 i will have a problem with them sexing it up.

    I just don't like how you acknowledge that they can't do anything to help themselves, yet in the same breath mock them. They're criminals because of the way they are born? So a new born baby who has the genetics that will make them a pedophile is a scum criminal? It's the same way people felt about lepers. Banishing a person from all forms of existence except for punishment because of the way they are born is, in a way, playing God.

    "Pedophilia, generally, is a term reserved for those who act on sexual urges toward children and/or intentionally seek out children." "BUT they certainly should not be able to operate in society. They are criminals and should be treated as such."
    That would be all well and good if that were the case; sadly, innocent men are getting slapped with a "sex offender" rap because of something beyond their control. See: A young girl at 15 can say she's 18, have sex with a guy who's 20. That 15 year old's parents charge the guy, now his life is messed up FOREVER, and none of it was his fault. THAT is what I have a problem understanding. THAT is the problem I want to fix.
    And just so you know, my g/f and I are still virgins so that's why I said "technically" before. Nothing illegal happened.

    Is the law perfect? No. Doest it make sense? Sometimes.

    I live in Texas, Vermont can do w/e the hell it wants; but, if a 14 y/o in Vermont sends me a text of themselves, I still get in trouble because Texas consent is 17.

    Neither of us has to fold. I'm arguing for the sport of debate. I understand your feeling and I agree with most of them. The only one I disagree with is the term "pedophile" and how it's used in the law.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think we used up all the water in this canteen. Time to spill another one...we'll just leave this one as it is

    ReplyDelete
  12. In regards to the original post, I believe the reason Vermont is attempting to make it legal is because they are worried about cases like the one that was recently in the news, where a 15 y.o. girl was going to be slapped with a sex offender label for sexting. If she gets charged she will become registered, and whenever she moves, people in her new neighborhood will be informed she's a sex offender. The heavy charge on her is rather ridiculous and I think this is what Vermont is attempting to prevent: they don't want dumb teenagers to have problems for the rest of their lives because of a bad decision they made in high school...

    ReplyDelete
  13. kind of like you...


    GET IT!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ash- that I totally understand and agree with. They definitely need to take a closer look at the laws as they are and figure out a more common sense approach to handling what is regarded as sex crimes and what is just teenaged stupidity. I think somewher ein the reasoning has to be what the intent of the person commiting the act is. Either way, I don't think this ruling is the way to do it.

    ReplyDelete

Please sign in to make a comment.