In 2008, the District Attorney of Wyoming County in Pennsylvania presented 16 teens – 3 boys and 13 girls -- suspected of “sexting” with a choice: either attend a 5 week, 10-hour education program designed by the District Attorney or face felony child pornography charges. Not much of a choice: if charged and convicted the teens faced a possible seven-year sentence and a felony record. They would also have to register as sex offenders for 10 years and have their names and photos posted on the state’s sex-offender website. Still, three girls refused the “voluntary education course” and instead, with the support of their parents and the ACLU, obtained a preliminary injunction barring prosecution under state child-porn laws. On March 17, 2010 the appellate court upheld the preliminary injunction, accusing prosecutors of violating the civil rights of the teens.
What had these girls done? A 12- and 13-year-old posed for pictures in their underwear at a slumber party; one was speaking on the phone, the other making a peace sign. The third girl, 14, appeared in a photo emerging from the shower wrapped in a towel, just below her breasts. There was no evidence that the girls had ever transmitted the photos; they were discovered when male students were caught trading the images over their cell phones. While both boys and girls were threatened and pressed to undergo education, only the girls were required to learn about sexual self-respect.
If you’re tuned into youth culture, it’s impossible to miss the hysteria around sexting. Research conducted by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy revealed that 20 per cent of teens in the U.S. say they have sent or posted lewd photos or video of themselves. Given that one picture can make its way far and wide in minutes, it’s likely that most of this 20% represent those forwarding or receiving photos, not posting them. But just as with previous reports of rainbow bracelets and oral sex, there’s a Press Gone Wild reaction to sexting, almost always blaming girls for their “stupid” acts.
Outside the Pennsylvania appeals court, MaryJo Miller, the mother of one of the 12 year olds, said that when she saw the pictures of the slumber party, she thought the girls were "goofballs.” Her daughter was wearing a training bra. “You are going to see more provocative photos in a Victoria's Secret catalog." That’s an understatement. Quick to judge, rarely do the press, police, or school officials make reference to the obvious: the normalizing of sexual voyeurism and sex camming in media. Whether it’s expendable babes baring it all for celebrity on Entourage, Heroes character Tracy Strauss supporting herself and her young child by stripping online, or America’s Next Top Model contestants posing in sexually provocative ways for the camera, the message to girls watching is always, if you need or want something badly enough, you should be willing to sex it up for public consumption. In the VH1 reality show For the Love of Ray J, for instance, girls with nicknames like Cocktail, Chardonnay, and Danger will do anything to be chosen. In what sounds like a middle school dating game, in one episode Ray J asks the girls “to pretend I’m out of town and you have to keep me interested.” Of course the girls do everything from a strip tease to sexy raps to making a “human banana split” -- even Ray J is so shocked by that one that he can’t stay in his seat to watch.
One newspaper excitedly reports that teens are on to the legal risks of posting photos, and so they’re taking shots of body parts or being careful not to include their faces. Who really knows how many teen girls are this hell-bent on public nudity, but no doubt American Apparel had liability in mind when they developed their recent “best bottoms” contest. Looking for the new "face" of AA, they invited girls (18+, but really, who’s checking?) to upload a “close-up photo” of their ass-ets to the website. I don't know about you, but I’m on the edge of my own perfectly adequate seat waiting to find out which porn-inspired fav will win -- Boom Boom, Luba, bOOtAAyliCiOus, or Cherry.
We can complain about the perfectly sexy angels in Victoria’s Secret Love Your Body ad campaign (please!), but there’s something particularly icky about American Apparel’s use of ordinary women in it’s ads, producing low-brow Polaroid-like pictures with a back room naughty feel that normalizes the acts teen girls are now threatened with arrest for imitating. Diesel Jeans adds their spin by capitalizing on adolescent rebellion. “Stupid” is crazy, fun, risk-taking! Smart is “the crusher of possibilities.” For girls, there’s just one way to prove you’ve got the balls to be stupid: show us your boobs!
Teen girls are comparatively measured in their response to sexting. When a blogger on Jezebel.com asked about this issue, girls were more likely to say it wasn’t something they’d seen or experienced personally. They sounded more thoughtful about the causes and more understanding about the outcomes than anything reported in the news. The real story, they say, is the unintended consequences of an impulsive act; the real concern is that girls are more likely to be judged, vilified and threatened with prosecution. As one girl said of the threats to girls like those in the Pennsylvania lawsuit, “it's hard to get my head around the fact that you’re making the victim the criminal.” Pretty smart.
Written by Lyn for The Feminist Psychologist, the APA Psychology of Women newsletter.
I agree.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 10, 2010 at 02:17 PM
But its off-topic...:(
Posted by: Jennifer | May 28, 2010 at 12:19 PM
You're nice, but...
The world is only recently recovering from decades of women in fairly limited media roles, so some feminist women like you can have trouble. Once a female character, especially a strong one, is seen doing something a little, well, too feminine for her own good, like doing menial household chores, or getting dressed up really fancy, or being too chummy with dudes, or liking the color pink...well, you can get ugly. Sometimes you even make an Internet Backdraft.
Case in point:
You say that Avril Lavigne is a marketed "everygirl" and that girl's magazines like Cosmo Girl say that she's become more girlie as she's gotten older and thinks that Jessica Simpson is "sweet and pretty" and "wants to look like her." Well, excuse me, Miss Women-should-be-men, but just because Avril Lavigne was a tomboy doesn't mean she can't change her personality! Stop putting women in boxes of "good" (tomboy) and "bad" (girly.) And just because they're girly doesn't mean they're bad, snobby little Gossip Girls (or Raven-Symones if they're African-American)! Christina Aguilera is a feminist artist, for example. Grrr...>:(
Posted by: Jennifer | June 16, 2010 at 01:03 PM
Christina Augulirea is a feminist right? WRONG!?! In most of her music videos is is portrayed to be a slut, hooker, prostitute, ect., that is not a feminist, and another thing - SHE'S PROUD OF IT!!! Mothers cannot let their daughters continue to watch this dirty slutty bitchy crap! She is also part of the illuminatti!!! A dangerous cult. She and other celebrities are bad examples for young girls:
- Beyonce
- Lady GaGa
- Vanessa Anne Hudgens
- Britteny Spears
- Nikki Manaj
- Rihanna
- Miley Cyrus
- Selena Gomez
- Lindsay Lohan
- Naomi Campbell
- Madonna
- Ashley Tisdale
- Hiliary Duff
- Katy Perry
In this case, being "girly" is bad, girly means "sexy" in these terms - not innocent. So yes, it deems girls as airheaded, idiotic, shallow, easy, lazy, waiting for my prince, good for only sex, kind of objects, like that slut showing her breasts to the camera, that's innappropriate. A girl needs to know she has more options than just to have children, cook for a man, clean his house, and stay at home. Women are not sexual objects to exploit, they are human beings people, persons. And they can do anything thet want. In the case of the media women are meaningless, we need to change that or we will reverse our rights UNKNOWINGLY!!!
Posted by: npickering3 | July 22, 2010 at 04:39 PM
You say Christina is bad because she is sexy. The video for Can't Hold Us Down continuously gets sut-shaming comments saying that she is a hypocrite for dressing the way she does and singing about women's rights, when the entire message of the song was that women should be allowed to express their sexuality and not be labeled or judged especially since *ahem* men aren't judged for their sexuality, not to mention that the MEN IN THE VIDEO ARE MORE NAKED THAN SHE IS. No, really. This is all true. And Christina is in her twenties, so it's okay. And Beyonce has feminist songs like Single Ladies. Lady Gaga does not fit one of the Cookie Cutter Cutie types and I think that is refreshing. (Google it.) Selena Gomez, Hilary Duff aren't as oversexualied as the other girls on the list. Madonna made it to # 8-NUMBER EIGHT-on VH1's 100 Greatest Women of Rock and roll. Katy Perry writes all her own songs, dyed her naturally blonde hair black, and focused her music on rock as well as dance-pop, so she is at least trying to be different. And why is Ke$ha not on your list? She sounds like she could fit there. Everyone else on this list sucks though. And please, do the research before posting stuff like that.
Posted by: Jennifer | August 30, 2010 at 06:05 PM
Hey man, advertise somewhere else!
Posted by: Jennifer | November 08, 2010 at 03:12 PM
one of my favorite types of blogs - opinionated, feisty, thoughtful and always interesting. Even if I don't agrtree with Jane's point of view, I enjoy reading the argument.
Posted by: Chanel Bags | January 26, 2011 at 05:43 PM
Love is a canvas furnished by nature and embroidered by imagination. Do you agree?
Posted by: Air Jordan 5 | January 27, 2011 at 08:06 PM
Funny but true.
Posted by: monetary consulting | March 11, 2011 at 03:31 AM
The text goes on with the useful information, that stork couples are mostly heterosexual (who would have thought?) and that there are 9 male and 7 female storks at the zoo.
Posted by: office147 | May 05, 2011 at 12:36 AM
Absolute stupidity))0 But I'd love to watch the video from the camera))))
Posted by: essays university | May 10, 2011 at 05:44 PM
I agree as well!
Posted by: Insurance Seattle | August 02, 2011 at 06:09 AM
hehe,interesting,and smart words.
Posted by: DVD Cases | September 10, 2011 at 05:14 AM
I would say funny but sad...
Posted by: Man and Van in London | October 04, 2011 at 11:20 AM
I understand why this ad may be a bad influence...
But it's nice to bring such a debate!
Posted by: Automated Bagging System | October 06, 2011 at 11:19 AM
This post, are very interesting and when i send link for my friend he said, this could be only in our time, when young boys and girls wathing mtv, and other porn channels!
Posted by: custom writtings | November 03, 2011 at 09:05 AM
I'd actually love to review these boxes on my shopping/lifestyle blog. i wonder if they'd send me a sample box to talk about?
Posted by: Belstaff Coat Sale | December 04, 2011 at 04:24 PM
Impressive blog! -Arron
Posted by: rc helicopter | December 21, 2011 at 04:52 AM