This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. Middle-class Canadian girls are giving oral sex after school to pay for sweaters and handbags. Worlds away from the poverty, neglect and drug abuse that are the hallmarks of prostitution, teenagers who appear bright and well- adjusted are prostituting themselves without batting an eyelash. According to independent filmmaker Sharlene Azam's documentary and book, Oral Sex is the New Goodnight Kiss , the normalization of oral sex as an acceptable teenage activity has led vulnerable girls to use it as a way of becoming socially accepted. For some in Azam's film, this ultimately leads to payment for sex because, after all, if they are doing it anyway, why not get paid for it? Azam, 8, a former columnist for the Toronto Star , interviewed Canadian girls and their parents who had been discovered by school officials to be involved in sexual activity with groups of boys, as well as girls charged by police. This includes a prostitution ring at an Edmonton high school.
Q: What is the boys' role in all of this?
Oral sex no longer a big deal, teen girls say. By Trish Crawford Special to the Star. Fri., April 24, timer min. read. Middle-class Canadian girls are giving oral sex after school to pay An young man finds out that his late father had an affair with his godmother and decides to pay her a visit, first seeking clarity and then When I was 12 years old I had a sleepover I will never forget. Me and my friends Alex and Mitll were all sleeping over at Alex's house. We had all just woken up and Alex's mom had left us a note in the kitn "hope you all slept well
Did any of them have to deal with the consequences? A: It is important to remember that the responsibility lies with parents, tears and adults. Your question suggests that another adolescent should take responsibility for what is happening.
Boys are downloading pornography on their cellphones. This is how they are learning how they are supposed to treat girls. A: It is not as much a lesson as it is a warning. Who is going to save our girls? You asked me about feminism. I interviewed Gloria Steinem, who was a voice for women. Who is the voice for our girls? Is it the media? Is it boys' opinions of them? Is it the negative images of themselves that they've created from advertising imagery?
The book is available through thenewgoodnightkiss. The film aired on European television last year to an estimated 1 million-plus viewers. Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.
All rights reserved. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www. Skip to Main Content. Skip to Main Content menu Loading close Sign In. search cancel.
By Trish Crawford Special to the Star Fri. Report an error. Journalistic Standards. About The Star. More Life. Top Stories. LOCAL GUIDE MORE BUSINESS VIEW ADS.
About Contact Us Feedback. com Subscribe to the Star Manage Star Subscription Gift a Star Subscription Redeem a Star Gift Subscription Feedback Site Map Newsletters Homefinder. ca Corrections Today's News Flyers Contests Resource Centre. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. Subscribe to Home Delivery Manage Home Delivery Subscription About Torstar Journalistic Standards Atkinson Principles Glossary Trust Project Contact Us Contact Webmaster FAQ News Releases Star Internships Careers the Star Star Advisers Star ePaper Edition Reprint and License.
Advertising Advertise with Us Advertising Terms Special Features Election Ads Registry. The guy in the dirty raincoat hanging around schools is a myth. There are some though nowhere near as many as our current obsession with this topic would have us believe. In no way shape or form am I defending kiddie porn sites or excusing them. They are, however, a reality.
Deal with it. How, I don't know but just deal with it. and a bullet in the head isn't the way to do it. But do get it through your head that the problem isn't kiddie porn sites. They are a symptom. And while you're at it get it through your head that the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse instances are committed by adult parents, relatives, close family friends and so on.
Stranger abuse is rare in relation to that. As for age of consent there's a major problem with attempts to legislate that. The forgotten reality in all of this is that when a child hits puberty a more powerful force has decided that it's time for sexual relations. That force, of course, is nature.
Attempts to legislate an age of consent, while well intentioned, are crude instruments to put up against this powerful force. While destined to fail they are "a good thing" though, I suspect, 18 is leaving it a little late. In all honesty I don't really know what age is ought to be though I think 18 is an age where the person will simply laugh at the law should he or she decide they want to get laid.
Sorry to hear about your experience, but you appear to have emerged as a well balanced human being not set on avenging their unfortunate past. If only everybody else could be as balanced about this issue and allow the truth to be heard as much as the myth. You are correct about being molested at a young vulnerable age and NEVER being able to forget it.
I was molested when I was 14 years old by a full grown man. I am now 5 and I cannot talk about it without my voice cracking. Sometimes I even shed tears when I think or speak of it, it was so awful and degrading. These people who are exploiting these children should be punished for the acts committed and I believe Google has a moral obligation to not make these sights available for viewing.
Yes, I know if Google does not make them available, perverts who enjoy this sickening vileness will find it elsewhere. x21 May am. Anybody else thinking. Perhaps he's right about one thing, it shouldn't be as easy to get ahold of as it is.
Perhaps Google has a moral responsability to filter child pornography from its results, and if they do already, perhaps to do a better job at it. I've just tried, and can confirm it is remarkably easy to get ahold of child porn via Google, I don't think this should be the case.
There are a few other obvious angles to get ahold of this material via the internet. I belive people out there need to do more to prevent it from existing online.
Twinrova21 May am. My post here is most definitely going to be attacked, but just try to keep in mind it's my opinion. Agree to disagree if you must. In college, I wrote a thesis on pedophilia which stemmed from a group discussion in an English class.
The TA had asked if a book on how to molest a child by a child molester should be published. Of course, everyone in the class but me agreed it should not be.
When the TA spotted my lack of agreement, she asked why and I simply responded "What better way to protect your child than by getting into the head of the person most likely to do it.
Learn their tricks and teach your child not to fall for them. Funny how that works. Stop and think. Does everyone here feel that Google's in the clear here? I'm sorry I can't agree it is, especially knowing that child pornography is illegal on a global scale. There is absolutely no reason why any search engine should display images from the search text "child porn", "kiddie porn", etc. Prove me wrong. OK, here goes. How can you be sure that these words are only used to search for child porn?
How can you be sure that you aren't filtering anti-pedophile sites, for example, that offer help and advice to victims? Keyword filtering is notoriously unreliable - e. library filters blocking access to breast cancer information because they filtered the word "breast", or sites discussing the UK country of Middlesex. Moreover, Google did not instigate the man's search. He was searching for child porn and happened to use Google as the tool to use it.
Therefore, the fact that he used Google is irrelevant. He is a pedophile who was actively looking for photos of child pornography. Maybe Google was the reason he amassed such a large collection, but it didn't instigate the search nor instil the interest in such material in the man. Removing the tool that he happened to use in this instance would NOT stop future abuse from happening, just force a change of tactics. Under which country's laws would it filter?
A search that results in pictures of 16 year old girls would be legal in Europe but illegal in the US. How can Google effectively censor one country without removing legal content from another? Under what authority can it do so without becoming a censorship tool for the US goverment. What a can of worms would be opened here - there are many things that are benign under Western culture that are unacceptable to muslim countries - which laws should they filter under?
Bear in mind that Google has local offices all over the world so "it's based in the US" would not necessarily trump local laws. No, Google has no responsibility here.
Blaming Google is like blaming the post office because it allowed photos to be sent, or the phone book because that's how numbers used for obscene phone calls were found.
First of all, Google does not publish information, it indexes it. Google might allow you to find a child porn site, but it has no hand in creating the site to begin with. Attacking Google would simply encourage these people to use other, less obvious, means of finding and sharing material. If Google are used at all here, better for police to use it themselves to find the sites and go after the people committing the crimes, rather than impose a de facto ban and push these people further underground.
Show me one. I want to clarify, because I think the point was overlooked: What circumstance would any search engine allow an IMAGE search on "child pornography". Text, I agree, is an entirely different ballgame and trying to do anything here is a waste of time. The guy has some merit if his sears were done via image searching. Text is an entirely different ct because it doesn't list images, but sites to them, meaning one extra step needs to be taken and blame away from the search engine.
But there is NO extra step needed for image sears. They're displayed. Try this: Open Google and type "Kaley Cuoco" in the web search. Lots of sites and a couple of images on the results. Now do the same under the images search. Understand now? I can say that a search for "pedophilia" under the web search isn't going to yield you pictures of a nude 8 year old girl having sex with an adult but who the hell knows what you'd get under the images search.
I'm not that damn stupid to try it. Given the replies to this blog, I'm attesting the "common view" that Google isn't partially liable isn't the correct one.
Hell, a damn caution message with the results would be better than NOTHING. Ah, maybe that's where we're not seeing eye to eye. I'm thinking of broader sears e. using Google to find pedophilia sites or galleries and communities where underground photo swapping take placewhile you seem to be assuming pure image search e.
You're also assuming that words and phrases used to search for this material will be obvious and not used for anything else. Sure, if somebody's going to search Google images for "pedophilia" or "naked 8 year old having sex", maybe your idea would make sense.
Unfortunately, it's not that easy. To begin with, it's well known that pedophiles will use codewords to describe their activities. I don't know them, but let's take an obvious one - "lolita". Blocking images and sites based on that word would not only block some child porn, but also images and discussion of the novel, 2 film versions, possibly pictures of the cast and crew of those movies as well.
An image bookmarked "Stanley Kubrick on the set of Lolita" could be blocked as often as "8 year old lolita porn".
That ten girls freeporn are not
From a free speech point of view, totally unacceptable. As codewords and euphanisms become more widely known, more innocuous material would get blocked. So then, we're faced with a dilemma. Should Google block all images and risk blocking a lot of legitimate content? How exactly would they filter it?
SafeSearch does a relatively good job at filtering porn, but how would it filter adult porn from child porn? How would it tell the difference between different kinds of "unacceptable" images? the only way I can think of is manual filtering, and that is impossible to do on this scale. Then, of course, there's the wider issues - what happens when a search engine stops being a blind indexer of content and becomes a censor of that content? Should a private American company become guardian of the internet?
How would you deal with them if your site is wrongly filtered? How would you even know? What happens when anti-drugs groups demand the same filtering, or anti-racism groups demand that historical pictures of lynching be removed, for example? No, the price to pay is far too high.
I say, Google is not responsible for this content. They should work with authorities to indicate suspect content when it arises.
Graphic Video: Nurses Caught In Sex Acts Next To Stroke Victim. Two local nurses were allegedly recorded on surveillance video performing sexual acts in front of a year-old stroke patient under It's amazing how little anyone is willing to accept blame these days. They always find someone else to blame for their actions. For an extreme example, a guy in the UK arrested for having more No seriously! How do those perverts get it? I mean there's no way they can find it online right? There are thousands of people dedicated to finding and reporting suites with child pornography, at risk to themselves. And I'm one of these people. I spend hours a day tracking down these suites and reporting them to the FBI. And yet last week, a man just down the street, was arrested with hundreds
Unless some kind of additional filtering is introduced, what we're talking about here is blind indexing of every available image. If those images include child porn, and they're pretty much bound to, then the Google index will include it for searching. So, unfortunately, this will remain a hypothetical discussion.
Maybe searching for "pedophilia" or "10 year old getting it on" will return a goldmine of images. Maybe it won't. I suspect not, meaning that pedophiles have to be more creative. meaning that Google would have a much higher false positive ratio. Either way, that's not the point. My previous post's main point was this - the guy wanted to find child porn and he found it, in this case using Google.
If Google didn't index it, maybe Ask. com or MSN or Yahoo or another engine would. Maybe they'd drift further underground, being less detectable. I agree with Bonehead, post 7 above mine. I have been online since and despite various sears for questionable material, I have NEVER stumbled across child porn. To my mind, therefore, it must be something already underground, and to make Google a de facto internet police would only make it more so.
his would harm children in the long run - if it's harder to find, it's harder to prosecute those responsible - and therefore Google should not be held responsible for whatever tiny percentage of blame can be placed in their hands.
Google are the easy target, but they are absolutely the wrong target. Moral14 Mar pm. decline21 May am. Twinrova ok what about the computer companies? they make the machines that can access google, without a computer google is worthless. so i guess they are responsible and should build something into their firmware? car companies should design their cars to be unable to run people over as well as sidewalk companies make sidewalks you can't drive on?
cause that makes it so easy to just drive along down them right. come on. anything can be used incorrectly or illegally. why should a search engine display results for those kinds of sears? for the same reason you want a book published. if you search for terms like that you will find far more research results, support groups, studies, news, etc etc. the search engine and the computer doesn't know what the image result is either, and nor should it really have to, but i could easily photoshop an image of a post-it note with the words No More Child Pornography on it as a logo for a company and label it nochildporn.
jpg or something. yeah that is a bad logo and poor naming sme the computer doesn't look at the image the way we do.
anyway, thats a long reply considering i am really hoping you are just playing devils advocate. You'd be arrested faster than anything. Publishing a book about pedophilia is quite different than what we're talking about here. It's illegal to "publish" these web pages and yes, we know they're out there.
But as I've replied already, it should be up to search engines to warrant a caution message or blocking, I'm open to both on this type of image search. And before I get the whole "But what about porn to minors?
Stop that too? Hell, I'll bet some of you had a dad who tossed you the latest issue of Playboy when you were younger.
Ten girls freeporn
But not one taught you how to screw an 8 year old girl when you're I'm truly sorry if you people don't understand this point but I had to say my piece. Chronno S. Trigger21 May am. Read the rest of his post and use his quote in context. Why stop with blaming Google for allowing you to search for illegal things. Let's force them to record any IP address of anyone typing in anything referencing illegal material into the search engine.
Good luck researching that high school paper on arbitrary age limit laws. FBI officer, I was just looking up information for a report. It's on the low side because they don't want to punish legal support groups, research papers, law sites. I might point out that a warning message wouldn't do much at all. The guy already had to turn of SafeSearch. If he got a message saying, "this material may be objectionable or illegal," I'm sure his response would be, "yeah, that's what I asked for.
You'd have to come up with "dirty" words, and then think of combinations of "clean" words that become dirty, and so on. Google is designed to search and it does it's job very well; don't blame it for the perversions of the people that use it. But not one taught you I'm pretty sure the physics are similar, if not the same, regardless of age.
I cannot prove you wrong because every word of your comment is the plain simple truth. Google has a moral obligation to not make these sights available for the pervs who enjoy this stuff, yes, I know they can most likely get it elsewhere, but one search engine is a good start. A couple of ounces of hot lead, administered through the skull, can work wonders preventing and curing pedophilia.
Joe Schmoe21 May am. It's rather amusing when anyone suggests that Google [or any entity] should filter results, when as the US law reads [as I understand] that it is a crime to even seek it or view it, let alone possess it. Basically, you are asking these companies to break the law and put themselves at risk in the process of developing filters [a magical technology that will never work]. Bonehea 21 May am. Call me a moron, but I've been on the Internet for 20 years now and have NEVER seen any actual pornography involving children.
I've occasionally come across photos of 12 or 1 year olds nude or semi-nude, but not in sexually provocative positions. Now I'm clearly not looking for this kind of material. And I'm not suggesting for a second that it isn't out there.
My point is that you don't find this stuff accidentally. In many, many years of trolling for porn, I've come across examples of every perversion and fetish known to man.
Yikes, it makes me shiver to think.
Anyway, if my experience is any guide, you have to make a very specific effort to find this type of material. Google may enable that effort, but no more than a gun manufacturer enables a murder. In the US, this question was settled with the Betamax case.
Apologise, ten girls freeporn the truth
Most other countries formally or informally came to a similar policy, you can't hold a company responsible for criminal actions enabled by its products if the product has substantial legal uses. The corollary is that you can't evade responsibility for criminal acts by blaming the product if the product passes the Betamax test.
Even then, the company's liability would probably be civil, not criminal, so the perp is still on the hook for their own actions. Child pornography is illegal almost everywhere, and as far as I know which may be nothingthe law is enforced just about everywhere. Any cop should be able to use Google just as well to find servers hosting illegal content. So Google is irrelevant in this court case. Slyrr21 May pm. The world is reaping the bitter harvest of it's own hypocrisy.
For years, for decades, there are people who have been saying, 'You can't tell teenagers not to have sex. They're gonna do it anyway'.
And the drumbeat in schools, media, universities and institutions of 'higher learning' have hammered in the message that there IS no 'right and wrong' and that right and wrong can be anything you want them to be depending on whatever situation you want them applied.
These same people, who demanded that underage kids be taught about sex 'because they'll do it anyway', who demanded that porn and sleaze be flooded into print, film and other media as 'free speech' are now in a cleft stick of their own cutting. They can't say that underage teen sex is ok and that porn is free speech, and in the same breath say child porn is 'wrong'.
They sneered and scoffed at the concept of the 'slippery slope' of moral degradation and now they're caught. These two-faced moralists who demanded that every form of perversion and decadance be made socially acceptable are now stuck trying to defend the indefensible and yet punish those who follow their lead.
It's only a matter of time before incest, beastiality and rape well seek to be included in thier little list of things that must be made legal 'because we can't stop it anyway'. And while morality and virtue crumble to dust around them, they'll still be sneering at a truth so profound they won't beleive it: 'Abstinance works - every time it's tried.
PaulT profile22 May am. What a load of crap Just in case you're not trolling, points: 1. This stuff has existed for a long, long time.
Remember all the cases about priests abusing kids? Those were cases stretching back to at least the '50s, and those are only the ones we know about. This is NOT a new thing, and happened a lot during your mythical moral paradise of the past.
It wasn't talked about, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. You are talking utter rubbish that has nothing to do with this case, sorry. You seem to be talking about teenagers having sex with each other.
The top rated photos on px right now, as voted on by the community of photographers and enthusiasts. Many of the best images on px are available for royalty-free licensing 25 Cool Polaroid Prints of Teen Girls in the s. July 2, s, fashion & clothing, female, life & culture, portraits The s were a party, full of exploration without explanation. They were all about discovery. The s were colorful and innovative. The world stood at its most creative precipice of all. Colors and design exploded; television was cool and getting cooler, fashions Watch the best Sexuality films on Short of the Week-review and discuss the new generation of innovative stories that are shaping the world
The issue at hand is an adult who at least encouraged the abuse of 8 year-old children well before the age of the sex ed classes you're complaining about if not participated in the acts himself. Totally different things. Yes, you're right. Now, going beyond the fact that teenagers don't try that every time - hence the need for education about how to stop pregnancies, STDs and the like for when they don't - that again has bugger all to do with the issue at hand.
It doesn't matter how abstinant the kids being raped are - they are still being raped!
Recommend you ten girls freeporn apologise, but
The definition of that term is that the recipient of the act doesn't want it. Again, even if you had relevant points and I could go on for a long time about how you don'tit's got sod all to do with the issue here. Anonymous Cowar 22 May pm. Symptom of a growing disease. This man, who is trying to excuse his pedophelia because 'Google made me do it', has obviously fallen into the trap that he doesn't think that what he's doing is wrong.
And abstiance does work every time it's tried - you admitted it. The fact that it's difficult is no excuse for wimping out when temptation comes along. And it makes things no easier when parents are told to NOT intervene when kids want to succumb to desires they're not ready to responsibly fulfull. And as that kind of nonsense sinks into the heads of generations taught, you get people like this guy in Canada. Well - at least you didn't swear. MoralP14 Mar pm. Nasch22 May pm.
Besides the utter irrelevancy of your post as pointed out so well by PaulT, I'm wondering about this one: "They can't say that underage teen sex is ok and that porn is free speech, and in the same breath say child porn is 'wrong'.
Question ten girls freeporn there similar
Do you think consensual sex between adults is OK but between teens is not? Or sex within marriage is OK but outside of it is not?
sex porno, porn, sex porno., sex, sex video, xxx, porn sex, porno, sex videos, porn video
How are those distinctions or whatever moral distinctions you do make if not those any more valid than the ones you criticize? Other than that they're different from your distinctions of course, which doesn't mean they're wrong, just that you disagree. Erica St. John24 Sep pm. idk8 Sep pm. i don't think that it matters how easy it is to recieve it. you should know that you shouldn't be lookin at children like that just think, if you have children, how would you react to it if there was a guy looking at horrific pics of the sort?
A man with rgers20 Dec am. The diffrence between soft porn and hard porn is olny in the eyes of the law!. spelling sorry. FACT Have you ever wonderd If ASD rgers syndrome individuals just like collecting lurge amount of sexual stuff as its a natrail progression. I'm not saying that chrilden must be raped or harmed for the photo shoots but there is a massive market for this thing.
nobody7 Jun pm. maybe instead we should try to make people who think a baby picture thats harmless is porn and make it clear that aint aint goddam child porn unless it depicts sexualy in any way then instead of ilegalising it compleatly let the mture enough to decide whether they want to or not like maybe at 12 they should chose what pictures to be in and how common if the 1 year old wants to risk alot by posingin a picutre nude compleatly nude with a girl if it isnt too sexual to the parents of the childrens point of view then why not if it isnt sexual.
Quest27 Nov pm. In, My opinion, I do believe that this man is at fault for possession of Child pornographic material. With that said, I will still put some blame on Google, and not just them.
Most search engines pull up very similar images, so it's not just Google to Blame. Google and other search engines do give you the choices of strict, moderate, to no filters at all in the settings.
Google just gives the browser the capacity to find child porn, but that's not a guarantee that the browser would just jump at the chance to find it, download it, and store in their computers. That's why I say it is his fault that he was caught with the photo because he was the one who kept them.
Google didn't make him get those photos, that was all him. As for how easy child porn it to find, it's very easy. As a novice artist, I use Google images to find things like body proportions and clothes, and even when I was just looking for porn in generalI would run into some of those images. So I know that a person doesn't always have to be looking for it, sometimes they find you. But that doesn't change the fact that he had the pictures.
With that said, I don't think this dude woke up thinking about children as sex objects. It's just like porn or drugs, never thought I would ever watch porn. It started with one video, and the next thing you know, your watching BP vids. I'm still not excusing his crime, just saying it could have happen to anybody, really. No could say "that couldn't happen to me. richardsievert18 Dec am. this is a very touchy subject here is what heaven feels about sex with a child children know what you are doing they grow up to be adult's and see with there eye'[s what's been toud here is a story!
One day bad men grabbed the twin's sister and he watd as they raped her helpless to stop them! He grew up hating men because they where mean and hurt his sister at the age of 7 a year later that girl started to feel her female desires because of those two men's and a girl's destructive desires and so the girl held his brother like they did to her!
Both of these children grew up knowing there where bad men and women in the world and nothing you do could ever change the future for a torn child!
Both the male and female knew from that horrible day that nothing on this earth could stop them from one day knowing those men that changed there lives forever where brought to justice! The story of the wheat and the tear's! Nothing can be dune unfortunately from the injustice in this evil age all we can do is stand taught together and love each other before the harvest that is shortly gong to take place!
This has got to be one of the lamest excuses for pervert action I have ever heard. This guy is a real sicko. Who in their right mind would even entertain the thought of watching adults performing sex with children? The thought of it is repulsive and I have never even been curious about such perversions. These people will get what is coming to them in the end.
It would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their necks and tossed into the sea than to deal with the wrath that is coming to them! Anonymous Cowar 18 Oct pm. tiger8 Aug am. as in the case of the cannibal cop in new York every one is responsible for what you type in the search box and can be held accountable weather its kiddy porn,murder,kidnapping or rape. fiction or fact. cyberspace is the real world as real as you in your home or a thought in your head and its policed like the real world where the search engines keep record of your wildest thoughts so unless you are a renown friction writer do not do sears you wouldn't want to be identified with even if its a joke.
Thom1 Dec pm. This is the mass hysteria witch hunt of our generation. I couldn't agree more, arrest people hurting people, posting and producing abuse not solely looking at pics, especially considering the laws are so vaguely written that it's meaning is left up for the individual to decide and these laws are often making criminals out of the very teens they are supposed to "protect".
The argument is, looking at the pics is harmful and can facilitate more abuse. If that's true, why allow violent images online? Why can you watch videos of war atrocities? Couldn't the same argument be made in both cases? Now, I ask, why not block those sites if they are convinced simply viewing images is harmful in and of itself? Don't believe for one second they can't, they could easily, the only issue would then be file sharing sites. Which would be the only sites you'd have to avoid.
Why don't they, simple, it again goes back to the for-profit prisons. Don't kid yourself, that's exactly why, and politicians who love easy targets to make themselves look like heroes. I know my comments can easily be dismissed Except the facts are on my side, if you are just willing to look. We allow 16 year olds in many states to get married in the U. this may come as shock but that means they have sex, I know shocking rightsome U.
states even lower the age with parental consent. Tell me how a picture is wrong, but early marriage and sex in those situations is perfectly okay? Simple, it's not, it only is cause "they" say so.
Still not convinced, why does Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and David Hamilton all have such huge success. Why are their images sold legally on Amazon or at your local book store, yet, if you search similar images the government kicks in your door?
Again the answer is simple, you i. Don't stay silent, fight back, abuse should be prosecuted, looking at images found widely available online isn't abuse.
Also, teens chosjng to take pics and sending pics of themselves isn't abuse; it's innate, natural and emotionally healthy behavior don't allow others to conflate the issue.
How would you like the thought police to arrest you for what you watch on TV? Oops, you clicked on and downloaded the wrong TV show, now you go to jail, and your life is ruined.
Don't kid yourself, the internet is what TV was 20 years ago to everyone that surfs the web. Stand up, fight back, write your politicians, start petitions it's not a popular subject, don't let others intimidate you, remember nudists view nudity for what it really is, nothing more than a human body.
It's your thoughts that they object to, not your actions, because they are simply coming after you for viewing. Also, it's easy to see why so many don't fight back, fear of being ostracized by the abstinence only and purity ball movement crowd is very real.
Enough already, don't be afraid anymore, fight back! found that 5 percent of boys and 28 percent of girls ages reported use of sexually explicit media. The Internet was the most popular forum for viewing. Note: doesn't it make sense that at least some of the images they viewed were of teens, close to their own age? That's nonsense and the laws need to change, time for some common sense. Why the hysteria?