Sexting

Since my opponent has provided no definitions, we will be relying on me to provide them. Resolved: Sexting is morally permissible. Sexting: The act of sending pornographic images electronically, primarily between cell phones. (I have defined it this way because the definition of pornography differs from state to state, and sexting should follow the state's definition. ) Morality: A code of conduct put forward by society. (paraphrased from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ======== Rebuttals ======== "If a person wants to take nude or revealing pictures of him or her self that is their choice. " People do not have unlimited freedom of choice. For instance, a person is not free to choose to murder someone. Freedom of choice is restricted when the choice causes harm to self or others. "Sexting should not be considered child pornography. " Sexting is the sending of pornographic images of children. The only difference is that it is self-photography. "Most of the time, sexting is used by couples in a semi intimate relationship where their is enough trust to allow the partner to see their bodies. " This is patently false. Sexting is frequently spread amongst group of friends or even loose communities. For example, see this from [1]: "In Rochester, New York, a boy [. .. ] circulat[ed] an image of a girlfriend to friends. " That is hardly an intimate relationship. And there is no reason to think that this sort of behavior is not commonplace. "But charging a teenager as an adult for child pornography could potentially ruin their lives. " This is beside the point. Charging someone with murder generally ruins their life, but it is for the greater good. If the government only charged people of crimes based on whether it would ruin their lives, thieves and murderers would run amok. It would be chaos. So we as society cannot base charges on the effect on the defendant's life. "The pictures are harmless. " This is a very important point. I will address it in my first contention. "Only real child pornography should be condemned not harmless sexual hormones being let out. " What is child pornography, but sexual hormones being let out? I see no difference here. ================ Contention 1: Sexting is harmful. "In Wisconsin, a 17-year-old [. .. ] post[ed] naked pictures of his girlfriend, who is a year younger, on the internet. " This could hardly be called harmless. Getting naked pictures of oneself posted on the internet is not only highly embarrassing, but potentially harmful. It would be easy for stalkers to track down this girl. My opponent claims that sexting is harmless, but it clearly is not. The "sexted" pictures can quickly spread, doing great emotional (and possibly physical) damage to the person in the picture. Contention 2: Sexting leads to a harmful view on sexuality. Those who participate in sexting get a warped idea of sexuality. It is not something to be toyed with. Sexting can lead to taking sexuality to be much more ridiculous than it really is; in some cases, the promiscuity can cause inappropriate misuses of sexuality, including unsafe sex. I thank my opponent and await her response. [1] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] . http://www.cbsnews.com...