Daughters And Disney - Merge

[FundieFarmer]

I think you really misunderstood the tone of the responses to your post on the other thread. Like I said on the other thread, I don't think people think this is okay. I have no doubt that everyone here on FJ takes child pornography very seriously and would not willingly participate or take inaction if confronted with it.

In the other thread, you said the mom blocked the girl from her son's phone, not that the son blocked the girl. You also said the mom didn't tell the girl's parents. I'm not sure which it is, but that mother absolutely should have said something to the girl's parents.

[OkToBeTakei]

Free fundies has a lot of neighbours. One for just about every issue ...... Handy!

[Freefundies]

I think you really misunderstood the tone of the responses to your post on the other thread. Like I said on the other thread, I don't think people think this is okay. I have no doubt that everyone here on FJ takes child pornography very seriously and would not willingly participate or take inaction if confronted with it.

In the other thread, you said the mom blocked the girl from her son's phone, not that the son blocked the girl. You also said the mom didn't tell the girl's parents. I'm not sure which it is, but that mother absolutely should have said something to the girl's parents.

I don't take It lightly when a mother thinks "its normal" for her daughter as well as many others to send nude selfies. Just because someone deems it normal doesn't make it illegal in the court system. It is child pornography and she justified in her response.

To OktobeTakei, I am on the Board Assoc. for my condo group so I have several hundred neighbors that I know (specifically 18 who live directly in my section alone) so I can say quite honestly that we all know each other well and many of us talk to one another on a weekly basis in the commons area. When you live in a nice community and see everyone by the pool, ponds, and workout facility you hear many stories from many people.

[DaffyDill]

disciminate

discriminate child porn

FFS, oh knowledgable supposed lawyer-type person, it's DISSEMINATE!!!!!!!!

Just gotta say some of you are fairly mentally ill

Are you serious?? Mentally ill because people on here have different views and reactions to you, the one who said that because a young girl sent a topless photo, she'll probably be pregnant by 15??

Shaming kids and embarrassing them is NOT the right way to go about things, particularly when they are teens.

[DaffyDill]

Frankly I'm shocked by a response by another parent on this forum and I find that parents need to be properly educated about a very important topic: child porn.

Background as to why I bring this up. My neighbors son who is still 13 has been talking to a girl in school. My neighbor is a responsible parent and will do checks on his phone (at least 2 or 3 times a month). She noticed this 13 yr old girl sent a selfie of herself topless and she was already developed for her age and of course wanted a selfie of neighbors son back which he knew was wrong and immediately blocked the girl. I posted this on another thread about "Disney and Daughters" and one parent responded back stating that its fine all 13 year olds do this today but it is highly illegal and all parents should know it.

I am a degreed law professional. Once a child forwards a naked selfie to another child this is the equivalent of child porn and dissemination of same. Although the girl meant for the boy to see it, if his parents have softwares (similar to Duggars seeing all their kids info.) or do as my neighbor did in viewing it afterwards then the parent has viewed said picture exposing the parent upon opening selfie text to child pornography. Apparently Trynn, thought this was all innocent fun but there are an awlful lot of laws and very strict jailtime and fines for those who view child porn. Once you see it you can't unsee it. If my neighbor choose to press charges the police would certainly have done so and both the girls parents and the girl would've had a very large attorney bill and quite a few headaches to come not to mention a lot of public disgrace along the way.

I also find it appalling that people don't choose to recognize that everything over the phone and the internet gets recorded. In fact, national news 2 weeks ago noted there is a new internet called the Black Internet which specializes in collecting child porn and disseminating same (so to those parents whose kids take naked selfies, just realize it is permanently stored in a Cloud somewhere waiting to be downloaded on some pediafile's home computer for life.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch ... -know.html

Everything is not art and please educate yourselves because this is becoming more of an issue especially with teens.

I assume you mean the 'dark web' where a lot of criminal activity takes place. It is neither new, or just related to child porn. Illegal drugs are sold, guns, all sorts of things. Additionally, the protection it affords people allows some anti-government bloggers words to be heard - people from North Korea, some Arab countries etc. It is an area of the internet that believes the internet should operate free of government/law enforcement.

Maybe before you throw terms around, you might like to educate yourself on what you are actually talking about.

[DaffyDill]

.../snip ....Oh, and another educational experience is that a whole other Internet called the Black Internet runs to download illegal child porn to share with all those sick people who want to see your child naked. Now you've been educated.

As I said under your other rant, there is no such thing.

From my other post:

I assume you mean the 'dark web' where a lot of criminal activity takes place. It is neither new, or just related to child porn. Illegal drugs are sold, guns, all sorts of things. Additionally, the protection it affords people allows some anti-government bloggers words to be heard - people from North Korea, some Arab countries etc. It is an area of the internet that believes the internet should operate free of government/law enforcement.

Maybe before you throw terms around, and call people mentally ill for having different viewpoints, you might like to educate yourself on what you are actually talking about.

[Freefundies]

Unfortunately Daffy, Black or Dark web is not my business as I simply don't care to venture onto it and recently heard it on the national news. Although I agree that people in North Korea and in the Middle East should have a free say we all know in the US that everything is recorded. That Government facility doing that exist in Utah. There is absolutely nothing on this planet that isn't being recorded including all that goes on in the Dark web. At no point should child porn exist in any form on any web. Those viewing it shouldn't and those putting it there should be advised, especially when young, that it is ILLEGAL.

[Freefundies]

Once again I just couldn't recall it being referred to as Dark Web. It exist and even if it gives a voice to some who have few freedoms it is still doing so much worse by furthering child porn as well as further trafficking issues for women and children. Nothing good comes from either of those things.

[DGayle]

I think the legal system needs to lighten up a big. A parent shouldn't be in any legal risk for monitoring their kids' phone messages. Seeing a picture sent to a son shouldn't make someone a sex offender. Saving the pic for later is a different matter. Something's fucked when you're safer, legally, by not checking in on your kids.

It's also fucked up that a teen taking a selfie and sending it to a peer who might jack off to it is something that could get them both on sex offender registries. A teen freely taking a picture of herself isn't victimizing herself. This is't the same as a grown man telling her to take her top off and stand against a wall for some pictures. Calling a teen a sex offender for making child porn by taking a picture of her own body is really not much different than calling the same teen a child molester because she masturbated and touched a minor.

C'mon, you can't tell me you don't see this, and that you really think a teen should get into big trouble for taking a picture of her own body. Teens need to be talked to, not given criminal records.

She noticed this 13 yr old girl sent a selfie of herself topless and she was already developed for her age and of course wanted a selfie of neighbors son back which he knew was wrong and immediately blocked the girl.

I'm calling bullshit on the boy blocking her. If "he knew [it] was wrong and immediately blocked the girl," why didn't he delete the picture? He probably said what he had to to keep his hide out of trouble.

Although the girl meant for the boy to see it, if his parents have softwares (similar to Duggars seeing all their kids info.) or do as my neighbor did in viewing it afterwards then the parent has viewed said picture exposing the parent upon opening selfie text to child pornography.

You may as well hold Playboy responsible for exposing a couple generations of teen boys AND girls to the naked adult body. The intended audience isn't always the only audience that sees it. If Playboy isn't responsible for the FACT that kids DO find those magazines (you're fooling yourself if you think there are a lot of straight teen boys who haven't pilfered copies from their dads or shared copies with their buddies) since the intended audience is a peer who wanted the picture enough to not delete it, then a teen girl sending a pic isn't responsible for a boy's parents seeing it when checking his phone.

[DaffyDill]

Once again I just couldn't recall it being referred to as Dark Web. It exist and even if it gives a voice to some who have few freedoms it is still doing so much worse by furthering child porn as well as further trafficking issues for women and children. Nothing good comes from either of those things.

Yes it does exist, and yes there are appallingly bad aspects to it. My point was however, before calling people mentally ill and behaving in a thoroughly superior and judgemental manner, you may just want to stop and get your own facts straight first.

[DaffyDill]

Unfortunately Daffy, Black or Dark web is not my business as I simply don't care to venture onto it and recently heard it on the national news. Although I agree that people in North Korea and in the Middle East should have a free say we all know in the US that everything is recorded. That Government facility doing that exist in Utah. There is absolutely nothing on this planet that isn't being recorded including all that goes on in the Dark web. At no point should child porn exist in any form on any web. Those viewing it shouldn't and those putting it there should be advised, especially when young, that it is ILLEGAL.

You brought it up and used it as a big scaremongering bat - I was merely informing you how incorrect you were. I you are going to prance around hurling judgements at people, be prepared to have the mirror pointed right back when you are wrong.

Regarding the bolded, you don't get it, do you? Why it's called the dark web?

ETA: Why do we need this thread when it's being discussed in the Daughters and Disney one anyway?? New threads are for new topics, not to gain more attention for a point made in the initial thread.

[FundieFarmer]

I'm pretty sure FJ gets it that everything's being recorded. We're only warned eleventy-million times in the TOU alone.

ETA: for kicks and giggles, I would still enjoy some clarity on whether the mother or son blocked the girl since the posts were so inconsistent. I'm with DGayle on this one, my money is not on the boy.

ETA2: Amen to the double thread query. Can't figure if we should merge or keep it separate, since this isn't particularly Disney-riffic but she started her nonsense over there.

[Freefundies]

DGayle, not arguing with some of your thinking but am pointing a ton of things out on It. You are perfectly safe checking on your own kids and what they are doing on internet/phone. The young girl needs to be advised of what she is doing no matter what simply because it is ILLEGAL. The ramifications can be ridiculous but they exist and for good reason. She is not creating ART but CHILD PORN. As to the boy, I am sure he probably enjoyed seeing it but his mom did confirm he blocked it before she found same and he does know she checks his phone. My impression was that he just started talking to this girl. What shocked me was a mother on the other thread thinking this was okay and it isn't.

Unlike children finding daddy's Playboy when it is shipped it has to be in packing to block out the view as required by law. This law exist because so many find adult porn offensive much less child porn which is why the law was put into existence in the first place. Now you only go so far to stop a child from finding the Playboy but most parents don't go just leaving it about. As for the text with naked picture, no one is provided with a warning that you are about to see a naked 13 year old (which no matter what is illegal). But the outcome of finding it on ones phone can certainly get that person in trouble.

As I said, if his parents had software to where they see it first, you can't unsee it and there is permanent record that you opened same if your records are ever subpoenaed even if deleted. Then you have the times where someone accidentally sends it to a group email or wrong email and those people certainly didn't want to see the photo but are exposed.

If this was your daughter who did this and the boy forwarded the picture to a large school group how would you feel? If your daughter went to school and everyone was calling her out? Everyone who got the pic can get into trouble. You would find yourself at the school and they would call the police to stop the picture from going around. There are a lot of issues coming off of this but it isn't going to change the outcome of the legal fact that it is child porn.

[FundieFarmer]

This happened several times when I was in school, middle through college. I never had any interest in seeing photos and thankfully nobody ever sprung one on me. It never got so extreme that legal was brought in. Usually the girl either was thrilled everybody was seeing it, or was so embarrassed she didn't want her family to know she'd shared it at all and just rode it out in quiet humiliation.

Basically what happened was that most of the guys saw it, everybody talked about it, and it died down a month or so later. 6 years out from high school and 2 from college, and guess what? Nobody remembers who did it. Those girls just got fortunate their photos didn't wind up all over social, but that was how it went.

It's a really stupid decision to make, and I'll be the first person to agree with you there.

[Freefundies]

Daffy, The laws are placed to advise and protect those that are victimized. For some reason you don't see that young teens are victimizing themselves and that the parent on the other thread is insane for just accepting the behavior when it is clearly illegal. Those are your issues.

As to Fundiefarmer, the boy did the blocking and he knows that his mother does go through his phone. The way she talked to me it had just happened the day before. We were both shocked and it is a sad day that this is what kids are doing. It isn't funny, but sad.

As to Techs, the reason I started a separate thread is that it isn't a Disney daughter issue anymore and there wasn't any other threads dealing with the issue.

[DaffyDill]

Daffy, The laws are placed to advise and protect those that are victimized. For some reason you don't see that young teens are victimizing themselves and that the parent on the other thread is insane for just accepting the behavior when it is clearly illegal. Those are your issues.

As to Fundiefarmer, the boy did the blocking and he knows that his mother does go through his phone. The way she talked to me it had just happened the day before. We were both shocked and it is a sad day that this is what kids are doing. It isn't funny, but sad.

As to Techs, the reason I started a separate thread is that it isn't a Disney daughter issue anymore and there wasn't any other threads dealing with the issue.

Re the bolded: Actually, I haven't discussed what I think of young teens and nude/semi nude photos, so you have no idea what my issues, or thoughts on the subject are. But don't let that stop you. :popcorn2:

[FundieFarmer]

I get where you're coming from and I agree it's an issue.

I just don't think that FJ is the audience you think it is.

[Freefundies]

Daffy, I am not scaremongering but informing what is true especially when I see another poster in denial about what their own kid is producing.

As to the Dark web, yes I get it. You believe you can go their for a free voice but I don't believe that exist anymore. Even Angela Merkel couldn't have a private conversation in her own country without several countries monitoring her business. I know that Echelon exist but frankly I'm not lying to myself thinking the Dark Web isn't monitored. JMO on that subject.

However, maybe you should start a separate thread on that issue to see how others feel.

[JillyO]

Wow, Just gotta say some of you are fairly mentally ill especially in regards to your children but once again parents not properly being parents and trying to say I'm shaming girls. By allowing your Underage daughters to take naked photos of themselves and disciminate them to other children is the same as child poronography. In FACT, this law applies all across the country. Not to mention that by allowing your teen to pass that content (even if just a naked selfie) to another teen whose parent may be able to view all said content (especially if they have the software to do so), you have then disciminated child pornography even though it was your child who sent it. After all you are the parent of said teenager

Trynn and your perfectly okay allowing your daughter to share her content with the world. Oh, and another educational experience is that a whole other Internet called the Black Internet runs to download illegal child porn to share with all those sick people who want to see your child naked. Now you've been educated.

But more cases in point, please read the following about teens and early sexuality from Psycholoy Today and even think progressL

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/re ... al-content

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08 ... es-earlier

Oh and to those choosing to allow their kids to discriminate child porn, here's a little reading for you to:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch ... -know.html

First of all, shame on you for using "mentally ill" as an insult!

Second of all, no one here is saying they want their teenagers to send nude pictures. We were saying that it is normal, which it is. Would I try to prevent my (potential future) kids from sending such pictures? Yes I would. Mostly because of the danger that these pictures would get into the wrong hands. That does not mean I would slut-shame my daughter the way you are doing with that girl your neighbor's son was texting with.

And thirdly, did you even read the articles you were using to try to make your point? While I disagree with many of the conclusions the author of the Psychology Today article draws from the study's findings, I have to agree with her last sentsence:

The goal isn’t to avoid the issue, but to approach it head-on so that your children learn about sex and relationships from their most trusted source: you.

So tell me again how this proves your point? You are supposed to teach your children about sex and relationships. Not slut-shame them!

As for the ThinkProgress article, I understand even less why you linked that for us to read. Did you even read it yourself? Since you probably didn't, I'll give you a rundown: Sex ed in American schools is woefully inadequate. It needs to start much earlier (around age 10) in order to lower rates of teenage pregnancy etc. 32 (!!!!) states don't even mandate sex ed classes at all.

Instead of providing teens with medically accurate information about their bodies, many public school districts still rely on “abstinence-only†courses that tell kids having sex will make them dirty. [...] That’s not exactly the right way to think about it, according to public health experts. There’s a wide range of evidence that kids who receive comprehensive sex ed in school are more likely to delay sex, as well as have a deeper understanding of issues related to sexual violence and consent. “If it’s done properly it has the opposite effect,†Jennings explained in reference to concerns that sex ed classes will encourage kids to experiment.

So yeah, explain to me again how both of these articles disprove my point - that educating kids about safe sex leads to lower rates of teenage pregnancies and other unintended outcomes - and proves your point - that it is a good idea to slut-shame a thirteen year-old for expressing her sexuality?!

[sense and nonsense]

Your post reeks of sexism. Of course the boy isn't wrong for encouraging the pictures. It's the girl's responsibility to maintain her purity, because hey, boys will be boys right?

And don't give me that 'he blocked her' shit. Until a few years ago I was a stupid teen with internet access as were my friends. Nobody receives a nude they don't want. The two of them probably discussed it extensively before she actually sent the picture. It wasn't like he was on her 'Funny Forwards' group and received a picture he wasn't expecting.

ETA: I'm not saying either of the two teens was wrong. I'm just questioning why Freefundies only seems to slur shame the girl when the boy's story seems ambiguous and questionable too.

[sense and nonsense]

Also, I'm curious where pornography came into this debate. Why are you questioning the legality of the girl's actions?

I'm curious to know. If you find out that your underage daughter sent a nude picture to a boy, do you (as a law professional) tell her what she did is illegal and equivalent to paedophilia?

Because if I was your teenage daughter, I'd be horribly scared, ashamed and incredibly confused about my body and its sexuality.

Which is basically how fundies aim to bring up their daughters.

Maybe you'd slap her silly like your grandfather. Parents being parents, amiright?

[sense and nonsense]

I don't think you understood JillyO at all. Sex ed prevents teen pregnancies. A similar simple search will show you statistical proof.

On the other had, shaming sex and sexuality, which is natural, will eventually lead to rebellious teens experimenting without protection. That is what causes teen pregnancy.

Nobody is denying that what those kids did is unsafe. Everybody is just questioning your approach to addressing the problem. Which seems to be shaming the girl and calling her a child pornographer.

[Freefundies]

I simply pointed out a fact about young pregnancy which is an absolute truth according to the experts which is why I posted the articles. Not trying to shame the girl but a fact is a fact.

However, her actions make her a child pornographer the minute she forwarded the picture to anyone else. This is a legal fact. These are NOT two consenting adults their are children in the eyes of the law and did something illegal. If the girl wants to take a naked photo to keep on her phone and not share or show anyone else that is her business but the minute she forwards or shows that photo it is ILLEGAL. The minute an adult views the photo it most definitely can put them in a very arkward position and certainly doesn't make it any less illegal.

[Anny Nym]

Okay, so because the child, who is a child in the eyes of law and not able to consent nor to legal prosecution (logically, obviously - because she is 13!), becomes a child pornographer herself for sending a picture and is what? prosecutable?

I don´t think that works this way.

[DaffyDill]

However, maybe you should start a separate thread on that issue to see how others feel.

I don't think another thread on top of these two is really necessary. In fact, it's probably the last thing we need.