Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: This Is A New Bit Of Wingnut Previous entry: Papa Ratzi to be bombarded with 5 million condoms

Forget “sexting”; what’s up with that prosecutor?

Legal IssuesSex

Some very good news for the teenage girls being persecuted for having a sexuality in Pennsylvania—-the judge has ruled in their favor, and ordered a prosecutor to drop child pornography charges against three teenage girls who committed the “crime” of engaging in a routine sexual display for their boyfriends.  And by routine, I mean laughably routine—-they showed the boys they were with and/or interested in pictures of themselves in bras, and one girl actually showed some nipple.  The problem is they exposed themselves to a prosecutor who believes female sexuality should be criminalized by sending these pictures by text message on their phones. 

I’ve been following the case with interest, because I find it fascinating that the mainstream media has decided to ignore the main issue—-we have a prosecutor who wants to throw your teenage daughters in jail because they’ve got boobies and boyfriends!—-in favor of the standard issue alarmist story about the scary new technology. The implication is that the advent of text messaging is turning your daughters into whores through sheer scary-newness—-they even have a nickname for sending nekkid pictures by text message, which they call “sexting”.  Last year, I interviewed author Marty Klein about this weird irrationality about sex and technology, after seeing him lecture about the long history of people using sexual fears as an excuse to bash technological innovations.  This actually dates back to the invention of pottery, he said, which caused a panic because people made pornographic pottery.  But recent history has a number of examples, and the car was a particularly interesting example of a technology that was held accountable for the end of female virtue.  However, watching recent panics over sex and technology, I tend to think that the level of panic directly correlates the the difficulty older people in a community have with adopting a technology.*  Which makes sense—-the more obtuse a technology seems to you, the more likely you are to be frightened by it and imbue it with all these powers of inventive sexual perversion.  But text messaging has, by and large, proven to be a technological innovation that makes automatic sense to older people, at least in my experience.  A lot of savvier people I know have been amused by how adults they know that are hostile to technology jumped right into text messaging, as well as taking and sending pictures with their camera.  It’s interesting to speculate why this is so, but right now I’m just interested in the fact that it is so.  Because what this means is that fewer people are getting distracted by alarmist media hype about “sexting”, and realizing that the real issue is that three teenage girls were threatened with prison and being marked as pedophiles for life for engaging in behavior that we, by and large, expect from teenagers.

In fact, I had mixed emotions about learning that the nudie pic over the phone thing is becoming a standard way for kids to show off to each other and arouse each other.  Like everyone else, I’m not happy that they aren’t thinking about the long-term ramifications, and my heart goes out to teenage girls who are betrayed by boys who give into the urge to score misogyny points with friends by showing off the pictures.  But I’m also reminded that teenage girls seem to have a lot more moxie than girls of my generation were permitted—-half the reason I would have been scared to take such a picture would be that I’d be afraid no one would want to look at it.**  I hope this reflects a growing ownership over sexuality that then translates into more responsible behaviors like condom use.


What really concerns me about this entire situation is that the alarm bells over the “sexting” are distracting from the real problem, which is this prosecutor’s massive abuse of office deployed so that he could go on a full-blown misogynist sex panic in public.  He needs to be relieved of his duties for this, because he’s indicated that he doesn’t think that the female half of the population he’s supposed to serve and protect deserves his service.  One thing that really struck me in reading blogger coverage of this was that the prosecutor George P. Skumanick had the gall to imply that the girls’ parents should be thanking him.

“I’m simply giving them an option,” said Mr. Skumanick, a Republican who has been district attorney for 20 years and faces re-election again in November. “We’re not forcing anybody to do anything, Frankly, it’s sad to me that their parents don’t realize this is wrong and they should be encouraging them to take the classes.”

He’s referring to the options he gave parents—-have their daughters tarred for life as child molesters or put them in “classes” where they are punished for being sexual people with humiliation.  The relationship between the illegal abortion and contraception regimes should be obvious—-women were “allowed” to have abortions if they submitted to a ritual humiliation of pretending that their prior sexual behavior was evidence of mental illness.  What’s sad is a lot of parents of girls actually went with this option, many probably because they were scared, but others probably because they honestly believe that utterly normal post-pubescent sexual play between peers is a criminal offense that should be treated as such.  Only three families went to bat for their daughters, because when you love someone, you don’t bully and punish them for having rather mundane, normal, human bodies and behaviors. 

Remember, 95% of Americans have pre-marital sex. In 2003, 62% of 12th graders were sexually active. And while I have no doubt that some of the people included in these numbers have terrible, depressing sex lives that involve no playing around, showing off, giggling, or otherwise enjoying it, I have to believe that most people actually have sex because it’s fun.  And using technology to flirt with your partners is a routine part of sexual play.  While it’s stupid to include pictures, especially if you’re young and your dating pool is young men who are under a great deal of pressure to demonstrate their contempt for women to their peers, the urge to do this strikes me as so normal as to be banal. 

Therefore, I can only conclude that the prosecutor isn’t just someone who freaked out when confronted with an unusual behavior, but is a malignant authoritarian asshole with alarmingly hostile views of women who haven’t sliced off our breasts in protest of the indignity of sexuality.  I wouldn’t trust him to be willing to prosecute rape cases, for instance, because a man who considers a teenage girl a criminal on level with a murderer because she shows her bra to her boyfriend is going to think you were asking for rape for pretty much any behavior you could think to engage in that isn’t sitting at home in a petticoat reading the Bible. 

*I’m speaking of averages, of course.  Some people never slow down in grasping newer technologies, and some young display alarming amounts of fogy behavior.
**As a teenager.  Don’t worry about adult Amanda’s self-esteem. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:10 PM • (172) Comments

When I was in high school, there were no cel phones or digital cameras.  So kids used polaroid film.

On friend on my swimteam had a whole stack of polaroids that she and her boyfriend took of each other in various states of undress.  Just the other day, at the bottom of a bedroom drawer, I found polaroid pictures of my then 17 year old self and my boyfriend getting it on in various ways, including light bondage games.  If I remember correctly, we bought an extra pack of film just for the purpose (the camera came from a photography course I was taking).  So what?

hello prosecutors!  This ain’t new and it aint gonna go away!  Private behavior here - go fuck off!

Comment #1: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  12:15 PM

Oh yeah, and this same prickwipe was quoted elsewhere as saying “they need to learn what it means to be a girl in today’s world”.  In other words “they need to learn their place”.

Comment #2: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  12:19 PM

you were asking for rape for pretty much any behavior you could think to engage in that isn’t sitting at home in a petticoat reading the Bible.

Are you kidding? Petticoats show ankles. How could any man be blamed for acting on that kind of provocation?

People have always been terrified of teen female sexuality. I don’t think the news stories properly explained the sex-offender thing. I don’t think lots of people realized the consequences these girls were facing.

Comment #3: Av0gadro  on  03/31  at  12:21 PM

Oh, and I should mention that one older student in my photography class took an absolutely beautiful series of art shots of his nude male lover that were ultimately exhibited in the student center (no goodies showing ... but clearly nude).  I’m sure the next hypertext hyperventilation over high school hijinx will involve similar such subject matter, no?

Comment #4: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  12:26 PM

”...is going to think you were asking for rape for pretty much any behavior you could think to engage in that isn’t sitting at home in a petticoat reading the Bible. “

There’re some pretty racy parts of the Bible.  And there must be people with a petticoat fetish.  So I’m not sure a woman “sitting at home in a petticoat reading the Bible” can be automatically considered pure and innocent enough to deserve prosecution if she’s raped, at least in Wyoming County, PA…

Comment #5: MikeEss  on  03/31  at  12:29 PM

Skumanick actually offered the girls a deal. If they didn’t want to face charges, they could be placed on probation, subject to random drug testing, and attend a six- to nine-month re-education program dealing with pornography and sexual violence. The D.A. explained the objectives of that program in a letter he sent home to the parents. They include gaining “an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society, both advantages and disadvantages,” and identifying “non-traditional societal and job roles.”

Why were these girls not barefoot and pregnant and in some form of kitchen?

Comment #6: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  12:32 PM

“Why were these girls not barefoot and pregnant and in some form of kitchen?”

This is why America needs to embrace arranged marriages.  If they’re old enough to be showing off their parts, they should already be married and using those parts to populate our barren earth with the next generation of American soldiers…just like God wants us to do…

(snark tags present but not visible…)

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  03/31  at  12:41 PM

Oh, man. I went to a high school in a town that practically made a religion into shaming girls for being female. Our teenage pregnancy rate was through the roof, and girls weren’t getting abortions, because the fathers of the babies - other teenagers! - weren’t “letting” them. I know very few girls who came out of that small town unscathed in one way or another. I, for instance, developed an eating disorder and would only date gay men for a long time. (I’m a woman, and no, they weren’t out - remember the nature of this town? - so we were happy to avoid each others’ bodies. Sad.)  My high school took a real “boys will be boys” approach to complaints about sexual assault and harassment from its female students, but policed hemlines as though the fate of the universe depended on it. If this scandal had broken there, the girls would have been kicked out of school, I’m thinking. For something that is, as you say, completely normal. I didn’t do anything like this when I was that age, because I still thought my body was something to be ashamed of, until I was in my mid-20s.

This prosecutor really, REALLY needs to wake up. This isn’t just an annoying principle he’s violating (NOT that I’m suggesting that’s how you portrayed it, Amanda - I love this post). He’s actually causing real psychological harm to lots of girls, and not just the ones involved with this “sexting” stuff, and not even just the ones in that area. If one of those girls were my daughter, I’d be filing a counter-suit.

Comment #8: F. McGee  on  03/31  at  12:41 PM

three teenage girls who committed the “crime” of engaging in a routine sexual display for their boyfriends

Although, to compound matters, some of the girls were not engaged in sexual display at all, and had not deliberately shared the phototgraphs with anyone.

Comment #9: rea  on  03/31  at  12:43 PM

@Essie: Seriously! This is why home economics classes exist!

My students were telling me that in their high school home ec classes, the girls did all the cooking and the boys just ate the food, and during sewing units, the girls would do the boys’ work for them to curry favor. I had to restrain myself from thumping my forehead on the chalkboard.

Comment #10: F. McGee  on  03/31  at  12:45 PM

Yeah, I’m normally a fan of education as rehabilitation. But in this case, it was insane for two reasons 1) they didn’t do anything deserving of rehabilitation and 2) this “education” is pure propaganda crap.

Comment #11: Antigone  on  03/31  at  12:50 PM

F. McGee,

Good grief, one more reason to home-school. Sad thing is, I actually think that Home Ec is a good idea, when properly applied to both sexes. I’m about to become a step-parent to a 14-year-old boy who has no idea how to cook enough to feed himself, clean his clothes, pay a bill, or generally be an independent adult. He will tell you, to your face, that his life’s ambition is to live in his mother’s house his entire life playing video games. If she kicks him out, he claims he will carry his video games around to homeless shelters and I can only assume that HE thinks that shelters have HDTVs and power strips for everyone to hook their XBOX 360s to. It’s very depressing. I don’t know that Home Ec would help, but I like to think that a little dash of “hey, I can take care of myself” would do wonders for his outlook and self-esteem.

Supposedly he’s in Home Ec now, which made me happy, but your story now robs me of hope. Thanks so much. </tongue-in-cheek>

Comment #12: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  12:56 PM

When I was 17 and my bf was 19, he sent me some pics on my phone, but we didn’t have a specific name for it yet.  I guess he could have been prosecuted for supplying pornography to a minor, but that would be silly since they were pics of what I already seen many times.  He couldn’t have been prosecuted for for statutory rape, because of the 2 year age difference and because the age of consent in that state is 16.  So basically the law says that I could see his naughty parts, as long as it’s a live show and not a photograph.  These laws are meant to protect children from actual predators, not to punish teens for being normal.

Comment #13: bananacat  on  03/31  at  01:00 PM

The prosecutor was a total dick. Even buying into his child porn argument, for the sake of discussion, since when do we prosecute the children involved? Nope, we prosecute the distributors of such images, so whoever forwarded the pictures should have been going to classes or facing jail time.

That is the potential issue that should be dealt with. The girls didn’t do anything worth talking about (dirty notes with pictures, whoa stop the presses…). Unfortunately once their boyfriends start passing the pictures around, I would be worried that it wouldn’t be long before some perv has them on a free website under the heading “Underaged fuck puppets” or some equally delightful misogyny. Mind you, that can happen anyway as the women at Columbia (?) Law School know too well.

Comment #14: histro-geek  on  03/31  at  01:16 PM

Essie -

I hope that your stepson actually participates! I think Home Ec is not a bad idea on its face - as you said, if it’s applied equally to both sexes - but according to my kids, teachers just sort of turned a blind eye to the lack of male participation. I hope your son has a good teacher and a better experience! Seriously, though, I’d talk to his teacher, just to get a feel for how things are going in there, because your concern is really valid. Future girlfriends will appreciate it if he’s evolved and doesn’t think housework is for women, those second class citizens with nothing better to do. Also, as a teacher, speaking to parents is more than welcome. They want to know (or should want to know) what you hope for your child in school.

Comment #15: F. McGee  on  03/31  at  01:16 PM

The irony here is that the only way to get it through to teenagers that these pictures can be dangerous is to validate the desire to take them.  I’d say, “Everyone wants to take these pictures.  In a just world, we could all take pictures of ourselves and send them out without worrying what would happen.  But unfortunately, even though I’m 100% sure your boyfriend is a great guy,* not every guy is a great guy, and not every guy will respect your boyfriend’s right to keep his phone private.” Even then, some will slip through, but if you could make it clear that some kids are out to get her and will use this as a way, I’m sure most kids will understand.  Especially if you make it clear that they have every right to do this, but unfortunately, other people are not fair.

*Because there’s no way I’m sure to get them to realize how many boys will give into the urge, no matter how kind they seem otherwise.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  01:27 PM

“Text messaging has, by and large, proven to be a technological innovation that makes automatic sense to older people, at least in my experience. “

I don’t know, when I worked as a customer service rep, I talked to a lot of older adults who not only didn’t “get’ text messaging, they seemed to have some sort of moral aversion to it, even if it was other family members sending the texts. It wasn’t even just having to pay for the messages, it was an unfathomable loathing of the technology itself. Of course, there were also 90 year old ladies that adored sending and receiving pictures of their great-grandkids. But the older people that didn’t embrace it weren’t just indifferent, they loathed it.

I’m betting the prosecutor is one of those. In addition to being a sexist asshole willing to ruin the lives of teenage girls over some PG-13 pics. Come on…they were in bras? So, if you take a picture of teenage girl on the beach in a bikini, is that child porn? It’s the same amount of skin! Even if they had been topless, this is a parenting issue, not a law enforcement issue.

Comment #17: wednesdayaddams  on  03/31  at  01:27 PM

Not to get into a “what about the menz” thing, but it might be worth pointing out that young boys have been hammered over this, too. One 14-year-old boy in Pennsylvania got charged for opening an e-mail attachement that turned out to be a racy photo of a girl about his age—even though he had no idea what it was until he opened it.

These prosecutors need something to do. If there’s so little real crime in their communities that they can waste their time and taxpayers’ money on nonsense like this, their staffs can and should undergo some serious downsizing. Starting with whoever made these idiotic decisions.

Comment #18: Bitter Scribe  on  03/31  at  01:30 PM

Which makes sense—-the more obtuse a technology seems to you, the more likely you are to be frightened by it

As in this example.

Comment #19: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  03/31  at  01:31 PM

Remind me again, how did these photos get into the public domain?  Were the teenagers posting naked pictures on the internet for a monthly fee?  Were they personally distributing the images around school to random classmates?

Or was this another case of “teacher confiscates a cell phone and starts invading student’s personal privacy”?  As far as I understand it, the photos were distributed by the boyfriends, who received no punishment.  And, as the images were kept on cell phones, this amounts - in my mind - to a teacher digging through a student’s backpack to find a receipt for cigarettes, then busting said student for smoking.  In any other context, it would be outrageous.  The sheer willful invasion of personal privacy makes the prosecutors into bigger propagators of child porn than the kids.

This isn’t just an issue of ass-backward prosecution.  It’s a matter of ass-backward investigation.  What on earth would compel prosecutors to even seek out the girls’ identities if their goal was anything more aggressive than to check that they were safe.  I mean, why are these laws even on the books?  To discourage pedophiles or to jam up prisons?

Comment #20: Zifnab  on  03/31  at  01:31 PM

This actually dates back to the invention of pottery, he said, which caused a panic because people made pornographic pottery.

Considering we have no written records from that time, it is a little sloppy to speculate.  But, yes, the ancient Greeks did have pornographic pottery and the capacity to record controversies about same.  They just didn’t invent pottery.

Comment #21: The Opoponax  on  03/31  at  01:39 PM

wed, that’s going to be a certain percentage of everyone.  But I’ve seen more adoption of and less pushback to texting than other forms of communication.  Dunno why, but less.  Not gone, but less.  Does that make sense?  Let’s assume the baseline for being a curmudgeon who automatically assumes that everyone who is using a technology is an asshole is 50% of people over 50.  (Not that it is, but we’re assuming a hypothetical.)  With texting, the number of people who automatically reject is down to 25%—-half the baseline level. The problem isn’t gone, but it’s there.

And yeah, I had some old man gripe at me in an elevator for texting instead of, I guess, looking up so he could chat with me about inanities.  I told him that he was lucky that I wasn’t calling the person.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  01:39 PM

Zif,
I think that some idiot forward the picture to a teacher or administrator, who naturally went ape-shit. They confronted the girls trying to get a name of who might have had the picture and sent it. Here’s where things get weird, as far as the adults’ reactions go. The girls, not surprisingly, refused to name names. So the school and prosecutor went after them. (Schools and teachers are mandatory reporters so they were probably legally bound to tell someone, either social services or prosecutors. I don’t know PA’s rules on that.)

Why they didn’t try to hunt down the e-mailer seems, sadly, to be a case of blame the sluts rather than any real concern for the well-being of young women.

Comment #23: histro-geek  on  03/31  at  01:40 PM

These prosecutors need something to do. If there’s so little real crime in their communities that they can waste their time and taxpayers’ money on nonsense like this, their staffs can and should undergo some serious downsizing. Starting with whoever made these idiotic decisions.

Well, that’s the big joke.  There’s no shortage of crime in my town.  It’s not rampant, but it’s not unheard of.  But “Prosecutor successfully prosecutes guy who swiped other guy’s cell phone” just doesn’t sound as sexy or career elevating as “DA busts child porn ring run by brainwashed innocent 13-year-old girls and gives said girls good Christian education, thus saving their souls and bettering society at large.”

Child Porn is headlines.  Petty theft, not as much.

Comment #24: Zifnab  on  03/31  at  01:40 PM

Zif, I get the impression that the boyfriends, excited to have these pictures, forwarded them to friends, who, excited to have girls to shame, forwarded them on, and of course you can’t keep a lid on this shit.

Comment #25: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  01:40 PM

Opop, I’m pretty certain that he had some documentation, and wasn’t merely speculating.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  01:41 PM

My younger brother (I have two brothers… people remembering my other comments on other threads, this was not the fascist brother) at 14 was into IRC chat and a “girl” his age sent him pretty racy pictures… that were clearly professionally made… on MY computer. They were very poorly hidden.

So yeah… we had a chat about that. I was not exactly pleased with him (at least part of me was worried about saving my hide), but I was more worried about the “girl” in question that was trolling for his sexual interest. So after I told him it was okay to experiment with people his age but that using my computer for that could get ME in trouble, and disillusioning him about the probability that these were candid pictures and not pictures taken by a “professional” child pornographer, I had to explain to him the dangers of chatting with what evidently seems to be a predator. Once I got through to him it seemed to have had the desired effect, though I still wonder why I didn’t bother telling our parents… if something had happened I’d probably be feeling pretty guilty right now. But I was barely 19 and a bit stupid still…

Comment #27: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  01:43 PM

A) if the girls were in bras (for the most part), where’s the kiddie porn? i know i’ve seen miley cyrus in various states of undress all over the interwebs, and she’s even younger (i think) than these girls.

B) now i’m sad my high school didn’t have any home ec. i’ve always thought it was some old fashioned class that went out with the 50s housewife. i would have LOVED to have learned how to cook at some point (i’m struggling now, but the only thing i seem to be able to make successfully are cookies).

Comment #28: akzidenzgrotesk  on  03/31  at  01:47 PM

As a teenager.  Don’t worry about adult Amanda’s self-esteem. 

<strike>
I can’t help but be a tiny bit concerned… send me some hot pics of you so I can be reassuring. </strike>


Okay. Not worried. Really.  (Uh, that above wasn’t in my out-loud voice, was it?)

Comment #29: LongHairedWeirdo  on  03/31  at  01:48 PM

Essie, My Mom and Dad both worked and I had no siblings so I learned to cook, do dishes, do laundry, etc.  When I was a young adult I found that girls my age were impressed that a) I could cook them a romantic dinner myself and that b) my apartment wasn’t a pigsty and c) that I wasn’t a sexist asshole who expected them to cook and clean for me.  Appeal to his (normal teenage) desire to be independent and his (normal teenage) desire to appeal to the opposite sex*


* or the same sex if he goes that way.

Comment #30: Woodrowfan  on  03/31  at  01:51 PM

Ok, so, Victoria’s Secret fashion show = prime time entertainment but texting a picture of yourself in your own bra to your squeeze = sex crime.  Just making sure I know what the rules are.

Good job they didn’t have digital cameras when I was young, these kids are tame compared to the shit I’ve pulled.

Comment #31: Godless Heathen  on  03/31  at  01:55 PM

Victorians fulminating against the bicycle’s effects on female virtue has to be my favorite example in this category.

Comment #32: draeton  on  03/31  at  01:57 PM

I’m thinking and I can’t really come up with a single good reason why a minor should be subjected to porn charges of pictures of themselves that they took themselves. It’s like charging someone for attempted murder when they tried to commit suicide or for vandalizing their own property or something. I don’t think I can exploit myself that way.

Of course, this is coming from someone who totally sent racy (but not nude) pics to my bf in high school when I was a minor and he was not. (I was above the age of consent and we weren’t fucking for another year yet anyway.) I’m very, very glad that he really isn’t the kind of person that would share them with other people, but it was a million miles away from child pornography.

Comment #33: ElleDee  on  03/31  at  01:57 PM

Thing is, they at least know (or can find out) who sent the photos to the vice principal (I think that’s who received them), and then they can trace it back from there.  They probably wouldn’t find every single boy who sent the photos, but they could find some of them.  I’m not advocating that the boys be brought up on child porn charges (though I hope they have parents who tell them they shouldn’t be sending ((mildly)) racy photos of girls without their consent), just pointing out that it’s bullshit for the prosecutor to say that they only went after the girls because they couldn’t figure out who the boys were.  If he really wanted to go on a crusade, he could have found them.

Comment #34: Raging Red  on  03/31  at  01:58 PM

Elle, it’s more like charging some with theft if they transferred money from their savings to their checking.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  02:03 PM

I talked to a lot of older adults who not only didn’t “get’ text messaging, they seemed to have some sort of moral aversion to it, even if it was other family members sending the texts. It wasn’t even just having to pay for the messages, it was an unfathomable loathing of the technology itself.

My dad’s one of those. Don’t even get him started on people who text or instant message people who aren’t far away. He doesn’t even like interoffice email.

Comment #36: annejumps  on  03/31  at  02:04 PM

Oh god, I just remembered that when I was a kid (maybe 6 or 7 years old) my sister and I got some new Underoos that we were very excited about, and we took photos of each other wearing them.  Totally child porn, according to Mr. Creepy Prosecutor.

Comment #37: Raging Red  on  03/31  at  02:05 PM

Yes, I read that story in the paper. What the prosecutor tried to do to that girl was truly a horrendous abuse of power and he should be disbarred.

Comment #38: atheist  on  03/31  at  02:05 PM

You know, if these girls had had comprehensive sex education in 9th grade or earlier, they could have talked through the hypothetical situation where a girl phonemails pics of her nude self to a boy who she trusts, but then the boy treats it like a trophy and shares.  And in the other direction, too. Before it happened, with their peers.

Can’t do that.

Comment #39: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  02:08 PM

Therefore, I can only conclude that the prosecutor isn’t just someone who freaked out when confronted with an unusual behavior, but is a malignant authoritarian asshole with alarmingly hostile views of women who haven’t sliced off our breasts in protest of the indignity of sexuality.

I’m not sure I’d go that far. (Mind, I’m not defending him… I’m just not sure *I* would go that far.)

I think he just has the old-fashioned “must control girls so they don’t have sex!” idea. But here’s the thing: that’s not for him to be worrying about. It seems to me that he wants to use the law to enforce *his* view of how things should be. And for a prosecutor, that’s scary. If you’re not his kind of people, he wants to hurt you, to make you toe the line.

Comment #40: LongHairedWeirdo  on  03/31  at  02:09 PM

Which makes sense—-the more obtuse a technology seems to you, the more likely you are to be frightened by it

True Fact: Cell Phone use can be prosecuted as witchcraft in some states.

Anyway, I’m glad to see this being addressed. My girlfriend and I were flabbergasted when we saw this on the news. The DA was clearly out of his mind, and yet (as usual for the media) no one called him on it. One woman, a prosecutor they had on as a legal consultant, did seem to flatly say that this man didn’t even have the pretense of a case, but no one seemed willing to address the glaring misogyny and sex-fear that was the clear basis for the charges.

This is like, what, the third or fourth time there’s been a national emergency over a teenage girl showing about as much (or less) skin as you would see on any normal day at the beach? I just can’t understand that mindset or level of irrational fear. I’m so glad to see these girl’s parents stood up for them.

Comment #41: mothworm  on  03/31  at  02:20 PM

My understanding of this case is that the girls’ boyfriends shared the pictures with other people, possibly posting them on the Internet. If that is, indeed, how it became public, it is particularly egregious that the girls are being prosecuted and not the boys. However, I don’t think the relevant laws about distributing child pornography would be an appropriate punishment even for the boys. In another case I saw written about by a lawyer blogger, some girls distributed their pictures unsolicited to a wide variety of boys and men, and that’s more problematic legally because any of the recipients could be prosecuted for having the images, even if they didn’t know the girls were under 18. Even in that case, though, it seems to me what the girls were doing is a tech variation on flashing, not really distributing child pornography.

In all these cases, it seems that if prosecutors can’t be trusted to use common sense and discretion (and apparently they can’t), then we need some serious reform of child porn laws. Nobody involved in these things, even the asshole boyfriends, have done something that merits the kind of prison time and lifelong stigma that prosecution under child porn distribution laws brings with it.

And yeah, this line -  “they need to learn what it means to be a girl in today’s world” - was chilling.

Comment #42: chingona  on  03/31  at  02:32 PM

My dad’s one of those. Don’t even get him started on people who text or instant message people who aren’t far away. He doesn’t even like interoffice email.

Actually, email culture is a real problem in my office, annejumps.  Several of my colleagues will attempt to engage in some fairly complex negotiations over how to do something over email.  One in particular sits two offices down from me and pulls this crap.  Pick up the phone or just walk over to my office (yes, you do in fact need the exercise), and the whole matter can be resolved in under a minute because we are talking in realtime. 

This also goes for people trying to negotiate plans via texting.  Please, if possible use the realtime voice feature on the phone.  We can resolve schedules and set plans in 30 seconds or less.  I don’t want to spend ten minutes thumbing at an undersized keypad back and forth.  My time is valuable (even if yours is not).

OTOH, IMing is great when you have several people in several locations who need to plan something together.  It’s realtime and you don’t have to get everyone in the same place.

But really, if you are just dealing with someone a few offices down, get up and walk your lazy ass over there.  Interact with your coworkers; enjoy their company.  I am beginning to believe that people are become afraid of face-to-face interactions.

Comment #43: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  02:43 PM

I’m so glad to see these girl’s parents stood up for them

Cue the chorus of wingnuts declaring them to be unfit parents, and trying to get their kids taken away.

Comment #44: tb  on  03/31  at  02:50 PM

Afraid, or unwilling to spend the time.  The notion that it takes equal time to say something face to face or email discounts the fact that most interactions with other require a lot of small talk before you get down to business.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  02:58 PM

But really, if you are just dealing with someone a few offices down, get up and walk your lazy ass over there.  Interact with your coworkers; enjoy their company.  I am beginning to believe that people are become afraid of face-to-face interactions.
Richard Goblin on 03/31 at 01:43 PM

Agreed, Richard.  Not all of us who don’t/won’t text are “afraid” of the technology. Unlike technophiles who consider every new technology an improvement with no downside, many of us neoLuddites see the acquisition and use of new technology as requiring a tradeoff. 

As Richard rightly points out, what many are losing as they text or talk away on cell phones (and snap pics instead of respecting and fully participating in the moment), is the participation in the community they are in - whether that is the community of the elevator (yes, it is amazing what the possibility of immediate contact with fellow travelers can yield, Amanda), the classroom, the office,  etc.

Perhaps, as hopping in the car instead of walking has created the epidemic of the willfully incapacitated, texting will yield the class of the willfully communicatively disabled.  We could call it Emily’s syndrome after Emily Dickinson, who became so anxious in face-to-face communicationshe was said to sit behind a door to converse with visitors.

Comment #46: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  03:01 PM

Not to be all parent-y, but would someone please check that poor kid for depression?  A life’s ambition of playing XBOX forever represents a just plain broken soul.

Comment #47: Punditus Maximus  on  03/31  at  03:06 PM

Afraid, or unwilling to spend the time.  The notion that it takes equal time to say something face to face or email discounts the fact that most interactions with other require a lot of small talk before you get down to business.
Amanda Marcotte on 03/31 at 01:58 PM

What a self-centered narcissistic viewpoint.  That smalltalk is how we get to know others.  How we bond with them as uhm, human beings as opposed to information systems. 

But thanks for sharing, Amanda.  Now I’ll know that if I get a text or email from a colleague, instead of a phone call or visit, that, I’m on the B-list - you know, that they see me only as a means to their info, not a real human being.

What a horseshit ethic you’ve got there , girl.

“Treat others never as a means only, but as ends in themselves.”  Immanuel Kant

Comment #48: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  03:07 PM

“I’m not sure I’d go that far. (Mind, I’m not defending him… I’m just not sure *I* would go that far.)

I think he just has the old-fashioned “must control girls so they don’t have sex!” “

Longhairedweirdo, I think that you and Amanda are saying pretty much the same thing, though she’s using hyperbole. The idea that you “must control girls so they don’t have sex!!!!” while old fashioned and “normal” is authoritarian and misogynistic at its most fundamental level.

I have to say I’m one of those people who doesn’t ‘get’ texting, and I’m frigging 24. If you need to get ahold of me immediately, call my cell phone. If it’s a cute quip, send it to me through email or on facebook. I don’t want to pay $.10 for you to tell me ‘lol.’ Thus, I have texting totally disabled from my phone.

ANd I totally agree about negotiating through email or IM. I’ll chat with the husbandman regularly throughout the day on IM, but if it’s something important I make him call me. I’m really really not a fan of having important conversations over the internet.

Comment #49: Ashley  on  03/31  at  03:12 PM

Get off it, Phylosopher.  There’s plenty of people in my office that I am on perfectly friendly terms with, but who are notorious for taking a five-second interaction and turning it into a 30-minute conversation, and I don’t always have the time for that right at that second.  Sometimes I just want to impart a little information and get the fuck out.  Just because I don’t want to look at pictures of your dogs right now doesn’t mean I don’t think of you as a real human being.

And your B-list is a harsh place; mine may be just filled with acquaintances, but they are all still people.

Comment #50: Kyso K  on  03/31  at  03:14 PM

Synchronisity;
Renewed my ACLU membership today.

I’m pretty sure the entire legal brief can be sent by Twitter, though

Comment #51: cynickal  on  03/31  at  03:18 PM

But really, if you are just dealing with someone a few offices down, get up and walk your lazy ass over there.  Interact with your coworkers; enjoy their company.  I am beginning to believe that people are become afraid of face-to-face interactions.

Apparently you haven’t encountered the dreaded “wall prop”. The person who comes by and props up your cubicle wall with their shoulder for five times longer than is necessary to impart the information you require for your report that is due immediately. The person who comes by for pointless conversations about topics you don’t agree on but can’t get into a debate over because you’re swamped and it’s not like you’re friends with them anyways or care about their stories… it saves me hours out of the week to avoid those people and focus on accomplishing my appointed tasks…

It’s not that I don’t like my co-workers, but it’s plain to me that we’re aquaintances and colleagues at most, we’re not buddy buddy, and I have enough face-to-face interactions in my life that I don’t feel like some kind of social outcast. And, while it’s not adressing texting per-say, I’ve never been face to face with the people on this blog, but I feel that my life has been enriched by everyone more than it has by Betty in AP, Bob in the mailroom or Bruce the CEO.*

*I hope it’s obvious those aren’t real names…

Comment #52: kodiak  on  03/31  at  03:22 PM

Maybe the DA is just jealous that HE never got pics like that from his girlfriend when he was young….

Comment #53: Woodrowfan  on  03/31  at  03:24 PM

Of course Kodiak, everyone knows Betty is the CEO, Bruce is in the Mailroom and Bob is in AP.

Comment #54: Robert  on  03/31  at  03:25 PM

And your B-list is a harsh place; mine may be just filled with acquaintances, but they are all still people.
Kyso K on 03/31 at 02:14 PM

How can you say that while acting as if they don’t merit the human interaction that means you actually acknowledge them as a person? Nope, you see them as a dropbox for your info. 

Can’t you muster the courage or diplomacy to say something like “gotta run right now” or “love to look at those pics, but I’ve got to get x done?”  What Richard seems to be talking about is not someone who avoids the one office chatterbox, or occasionally resorts to texting, but makes it a habit. 

There are people who are generally disabled socially - autistic or Aspbergers spectrum.  But I’m seeing in society what Richard is seeing - and which I didn’t realize until he posted it - people are using text and email as a shield - you don’t get comfortable negotiating human interactions without practice.  I guess the term could be willfully Aspbergian.

Comment #55: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  03:25 PM

As Richard rightly points out, what many are losing as they text or talk away on cell phones (and snap pics instead of respecting and fully participating in the moment), is the participation in the community they are in - whether that is the community of the elevator (yes, it is amazing what the possibility of immediate contact with fellow travelers can yield, Amanda),

Oh dear, do you honestly think my addiction to technology means I don’t see human beings in person very often?  That’s an odd belief, especially since technology makes it much easier for me to see friends in person that, in other circumstances, would be harder to organize around.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  03:33 PM

What a self-centered narcissistic viewpoint.

I may be female, but my work is valuable.  So step off it.  Not everyone has a ton of time to devote to socializing at work.  No, not even women.  How self-centered and narcissistic to think your demands on other people’s time are more important than jobs they are paid to do.

Comment #57: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  03:34 PM

you don’t get comfortable negotiating human interactions without practice

Email and texting IS human interaction. One which you are not comfortable negotiating. Possibly from lack of practice. raspberry

Comment #58: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  03:35 PM

BTW, anyone else gets a belly laugh when they are faced with the contradictions inherent in the term ‘neoLuddite’?

Comment #59: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  03:37 PM

I’m just sort of stunned to be told that new technologies that have given me a bunch of really neat friends somehow make me less social.  Good god, I’m always trying to figure out how to make more time for my friends when I have so much other shit to do, which doesn’t strike me as a problem for people who are supposedly hostile to having face-to-face interactions.  Don’t try to turn me into a bad person to justify your Luddite behavior.  See, that’s the problem with Luddites—-always trying to insinuate that their hang-ups mean the people they’re bashing are bad people.

I don’t owe men who accost me in public the attention they crave, and thank GOD for the cell phone, which creates a convenient excuse they tend to accept more quickly than just telling them no.

Comment #60: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  03:38 PM

BTW phylosopher, didn’t you know that

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
...

Comment #61: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  03:48 PM

“Should have a disclosure on every post “For entertainment purposes ONLY”.”

I’d prefer one like this: “Lil Sam — Not entertaining under any circumstances, even unintentionally…”

Comment #62: MikeEss  on  03/31  at  03:57 PM

This was the part of the story I loved:

...including one girl who was shown in pictures in a bikini. Her parents asked the D.A. why on earth that would be child porn, and he said it was because she was “posed provocatively.”

Coming this Fall- Law&Order;: Hot or Not.

Comment #63: stryx  on  03/31  at  03:58 PM

Lil Sam was just attracted to the notion—-which he clearly finds ridiculous—-that a woman has value.

Comment #64: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  04:01 PM

Or that women work.

Comment #65: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  04:09 PM

BTW, is Lil Sam a pet name for you or a pet name for your lil sam?

Comment #66: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  04:10 PM

...including one girl who was shown in pictures in a bikini. Her parents asked the D.A. why on earth that would be child porn, and he said it was because she was “posed provocatively.”

Oh oh ... that means the Clackamas County prosecutor will be coming after everybody in the classes of 1981-1984 who bought the 1981 Clackamas High year book.

Comment #67: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  04:12 PM

Oh geeze, and coming after me too because I let Duane the Filmmaker roll the credits for his fake bond movie across my bikini belly!

Comment #68: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  04:13 PM

Richard Goblin,

For fairness sake, I feel compelled to point out that I use email for complex issues because I have had one too many “Why did you make this change?” moments where the person either didn’t remember or claimed to not remember having the crucial discussion in question. It’s CYOA.

Comment #69: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  04:13 PM

Email and texting IS human interaction. One which you are not comfortable negotiating. Possibly from lack of practice.

I’m always texting people when I’m having a good time.  “We’re at this bar!”  “Come to this house!”  “Where are you?  Everyone wants to see you!”  This is because I am uncomfortable negotiating human relationships.  Phylo had it right the whole time.

Sometimes I want to send someone information that they don’t need to respond to, or see right then, or access their voicemailbox for (I know it’s easier for me to read a short text than get to my voicemail, so if the message is short, text that sucker).  “So-and-so arrived OK.”  “The material you want is called ____”  This is because I see them as information repositories, not human beings.  I’m also only ever thinking about me; there’s never a time when I’d want to send someone a short message in the least obtrusive way possible.

Comment #70: Kyso K  on  03/31  at  04:20 PM

Oh god, I just remembered that when I was a kid (maybe 6 or 7 years old) my sister and I got some new Underoos that we were very excited about, and we took photos of each other wearing them.  Totally child porn, according to Mr. Creepy Prosecutor.

Actually, there are a few cases of parents being charged with child porn for posting pics of their kids in the bath online. I don’t think it ever went to prosecution, but the feeling is that because some people might use these pictures (that every parent takes) for criminal purposes, it’s the pictures themselves that are criminal.

And Phylosopher and Richard, there are times when someone who works is too busy for your precious face time. It doesn’t make them a bad person, or even a bad friend. It just means they’re slammed, and actually want to get their work done. Suggesting that’s selfish tells me that you have a lot more job security than the average office drone.

Comment #71: Av0gadro  on  03/31  at  04:22 PM

“It’s CYOA.”

...not only that, often the kind of stuff I work with is complex: long URLs, complex data, complex error messages.

Often the only way to actually begin the process of fixing something is to get a screen print, a URL, and/or the exact error message they are getting.  Over the phone that stuff is often gibberish (hearing from them that it “just doesn’t work!” is useless), in an email it is usually much clearer and more concise.

I could walk across campus to somebody’s desk to see it in person, then (since all of my software tools are back at my desk) trudge back to my office and fix it.  Good exercise for me, but not a good use of my time…

Comment #72: MikeEss  on  03/31  at  04:25 PM

Also, Phylo, it’s okay to not like your officemates and not want to go talk to them in person. When I worked at a law firm and one of the lech-y partners would stare at my boobs instead of listening to me talk, did I go to his office every time I needed to tell him something, even though it was right down the hall from my office? No. No I did not. And I am perfectly fine with that, as was the firm I worked for, because his behavior was heading down the road to “sexual harassment lawsuit.”

Comment #73: F. McGee  on  03/31  at  04:26 PM

I may be female, but my work is valuable.  So step off it.  Not everyone has a ton of time to devote to socializing at work.  No, not even women.  How self-centered and narcissistic to think your demands on other people’s time are more important than jobs they are paid to do.
Amanda Marcotte on 03/31 at 02:34 PM

Your bias is showing, dear.  No one is claiming that anyone’s work is not important, or that you become devoted to socializing at work.  Demands like acknowledging that others are deserving of respect as humans by treating them as such instead of like a computer from which you retrieve information without having to say please and thank you aren’t socializing - it’s generally termed civilized interaction.

“Oh dear, do you honestly think my addiction to technology means I don’t see human beings in person very often?
Amanda Marcotte

Seeing/interacting with only persons of of one’s choosing instead of the whole of humanity in your community makes you isolated in a sea of like-minded human beings-akin to living in a gated community.  Sort of like the CEO who argues for the private entrance so he doesn’t actually have to see either the homeless in front of his/her building or the sad and demoralized rank and file employees entering.  Yep, that CEO’s a real social type, too.

“I’m just sort of stunned to be told that new technologies that have given me a bunch of really neat friends somehow make me less social.”
Amanda Marcotte

Yes, it does make you less of a social (as in living in a society) being.  You are using a technology as your next post shows to defend yourself from interactions instead of using direct means.  You’ve done nothing to register with the guy harassing you,  just put up your cellphone shield - burqa anyone?

Comment #74: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  04:32 PM

phylosopher, a thought. Calling a blog mistress “dear” sounds condescending, insulting, and dripping in male privilege. I’m assuming you didn’t know and you’ll try to refrain in the future.

Also, insisting that Amanda “address” a man harrassing her in a more direct fashion than a cellphone shield is also insulting and condescending (because you know a better method that she doesn’t) and also drips male privilege because you don’t understand the consequences of more direct action.

Comment #75: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  04:37 PM

I’m reminded of a former coworker, a new mother whose husband snapped some photos of her breastfeeding her newborn (the sort of thing new parents are wont to do). Her local Wal-Mart, where she’d dropped off the roll to be developed, refused to turn over those photos because they contained nudity and a child, and therefore qualified as “child pornography.” Perhaps even more disturbing, they also refused to destroy the photos in front of her, nor provide her with any proof that the developed photos they wouldn’t turn over had been destroyed.

Real child pornography is horrible and exploitative and should definitely not be tolerated, but when kiddie-porn paranoia extends to punishing normal people for doing perfectly normal things, I think it’s safe to say things have gotten a little out of hand.

Comment #76: vervain  on  03/31  at  04:39 PM

For fairness sake, I feel compelled to point out that I use email for complex issues because I have had one too many “Why did you make this change?” moments where the person either didn’t remember or claimed to not remember having the crucial discussion in question. It’s CYOA.

Word.  I work in a place where some people like to point fingers at others when mistakes are made, and email is far superior since it documents exactly what was said by whom.

Comment #77: Raging Red  on  03/31  at  04:41 PM

How we bond with them as uhm, human beings as opposed to information systems. 

My co-workers *are* information systems. If they were human beings, I wouldn’t be interested in talking to them, as we have no interests in common.

I am an information system too. And this information system is not interested in your small talk protocol.

Maybe I have Asperger’s or maybe I’m just a cold hard bitch, but I don’t have the slightest interest in talking to people about uninteresting things when my goal is to discuss a work-related issue; also, I really prefer email and even texting because my brain handles written language better than spoken. It’s harder for me to remember or understand spoken communication than written. I am more articulate in writing than in speech. And for something complex, it absolutely should be written, because if it was complicated enough that it was hard to explain, it’s complicated enough that I’ll want written references to it to look back at when I get confused.

And by the way? I am sick and tired of other people trying to shame me for not being a social butterfly like they are. This human does not want human interaction with *you*. That does not make me a bad human, it makes me a different human than you are. Extroverts who are comfortable with the existence of introverts don’t bother me, but extroverts who are convinced that anyone who isn’t spending every waking minute talking to a human being is a broken creature who could be replaced with a robot… you guys can cordially fuck off and die.

Comment #78: Alara J Rogers  on  03/31  at  04:41 PM

I’m always texting people when I’m having a good time.  “We’re at this bar!” “Come to this house!” “Where are you?  Everyone wants to see you!” This is because I am uncomfortable negotiating human relationships.  Phylo had it right the whole time.

Sometimes I want to send someone information that they don’t need to respond to, or see right then, or access their voicemailbox for (I know it’s easier for me to read a short text than get to my voicemail, so if the message is short, text that sucker).  “So-and-so arrived OK.” “The material you want is called ____” This is because I see them as information repositories, not human beings.  I’m also only ever thinking about me; there’s never a time when I’d want to send someone a short message in the least obtrusive way possible.
Kyso K on 03/31 at 03:20 PM

Talk about setting up strawmen.  Yes, there is a good time for email or texting - never said don’t ever use text - the point is to evaluate it first.  But, what Richard pointed out was people using texting as a habit to avoid human interaction because they fear? are uncomforatble? are lazy? with it. 

Texting under the table while with a group at a bar sends a message to the people you’re with that they are inadequate company that you are bored with-  inviting a friend to join you with the acknowledgment of the group - “hey, Amanda would really make this a party” is different.”

Telling the office “wall prop” you don’t have time to talk now means risking offending them with the truth.  Telling the harasser to fuck off means risking being called a bitch.  Heck back in the day, using an answering machine to screen the call from the soon to be former boy/girlfriend meant you didn’t have to break up with them and/or see them cry - so much easier to mediate it.

Comment #79: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  04:45 PM

Apparently you haven’t encountered the dreaded “wall prop” ... it saves me hours out of the week to avoid those people and focus on accomplishing my appointed tasks

I’ve encountered him/her, Kodiak.  I’m usually tell him/her politely but firmly that I don’t have time.

Email and texting IS human interaction. One which you are not comfortable negotiating. Possibly from lack of practice.

It’s a very thin form of human interaction.  You lose body language, facial expression, tone of voice in email, texting, and IMing.  In texting, you also lose grammar and spelling (e.g. ‘R U redi 2 go @ 7?’ in my inbox now).  They are very useful tools, but only within their particular scope.  For example, texting is great for sending short messages in places where you can’t make noise.  However, texting does not work in anything resembling an efficient manner for more complex communications.

Afraid, or unwilling to spend the time.  The notion that it takes equal time to say something face to face or email discounts the fact that most interactions with other require a lot of small talk before you get down to business.

Usually I just knock on a door and ask what I need to ask and most of my colleagues operate the same way.  It was the same at my last office.  Small talk is usually initiated (at least here) solely for the purpose of interoffice socializing.  On the other hand it has taken me 10 minutes to coordinate schedules with someone who insisted on doing it via texting.

Don’t try to turn me into a bad person to justify your Luddite behavior.  See, that’s the problem with Luddites—-always trying to insinuate that their hang-ups mean the people they’re bashing are bad people.

I’m not sure anyone writing in your comments section is trying to turn you into a bad person.  Nor, do I suspect that anyone commenting on a blog is a Luddite in any sort of serious way.  But, and I doubt this will ever come up, if you ever need to coordinate your schedule with mine, please call instead of texting.  I promise I’ll keep the small talk to a minimum.

Comment #80: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  04:46 PM

Oh oh ... that means the Clackamas County prosecutor will be coming after everybody in the classes of 1981-1984 who bought the 1981 Clackamas High year book.

Statistically, I think that’s probably close to having been fulfilled even without the provocative-pose prosecutions.

HA!


/Clackamas County resident

Comment #81: Auguste  on  03/31  at  04:48 PM

@ Alara J Rogers

QFFT.

Telling the office “wall prop” you don’t have time to talk now means risking offending them with the truth.

Or, you know, you could be fired because the Chatty Guy is your boss. Phylosopher, are you ever anything but a self-inflated know-it-all? Because, seriously, between this and the breast-feeding thread, it’s getting a little tired having the Super Important Man tell us stupid girls how to behave. *eyeroll*

Comment #82: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  04:51 PM

Humm, A post on the Pope and condoms: 11 comments.  A post on teenage girls sending cheesecake pics of themselves: 80+ comments.

Comment #83: Woodrowfan  on  03/31  at  04:52 PM

Woodrowfan, well it helps that it’s turned into an “I’m a better human than you because I’m not soiled by TECHNOLOGY” rant.

What was your point?

Comment #84: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  04:53 PM

For some reason I thought we’d already had the “more comments means you are unserious, and I am not” discussion.

Comment #85: Auguste  on  03/31  at  04:54 PM

phylosopher, a thought. Calling a blog mistress “dear” sounds condescending, insulting, and dripping in male privilege. I’m assuming you didn’t know and you’ll try to refrain in the future.

Also, insisting that Amanda “address” a man harrassing her in a more direct fashion than a cellphone shield is also insulting and condescending (because you know a better method that she doesn’t) and also drips male privilege because you don’t understand the consequences of more direct action.
Essie Elephant on 03/31 at 03:37 PM

Thanks for the LOL’s dear.  I would say calling her a blog mistress - so sexist and gendered -  as opposed to the neutral terms blogger or blog owner means you get today’s pot/kettle award. 

And another strawman - Amanda knows the other way - she finds it easier to use a shield - seriously, this is the reason some Muslim women claim they choose to wear a burqa, some women (and men) wear fake wedding rings,  - and the difference is?

Comment #86: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  04:54 PM

In fact, I had mixed emotions about learning that the nudie pic over the phone thing is becoming a standard way for kids to show off to each other and arouse each other.  Like everyone else, I’m not happy that they aren’t thinking about the long-term ramifications

Oh noes!  AM is becoming a previous generation feminist. 

The current generation doesn’t expect or demand privacy:  it’s a pre-digital camera idea.

I’m in my late forties, and know all generations have behaved pretty much the same:  the younger ones just got it recorded. 

Yes, we google a candidate when we hire, but a few naked pictures, or postings about sexual orientation, hardly warrant a raised eyebrow. 

I was talking to a managing director recently, and he was genuinely exasperated that politicians were even discussing gay marriage.  “Don’t they get it?” he asked, “no one under 35 even thinks this is worth discussing.”

Comment #87: gorobei  on  03/31  at  04:55 PM

Woodrowfan, well it helps that it’s turned into an “I’m a better human than you because I’m not soiled by TECHNOLOGY” rant.

Who exactly holds that postion, Essie.  (Moreover anyone holding that opinion and then expressing that opinion on a blog might have an internal conflict to resolve.)

Comment #88: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  04:55 PM

I had a wall-prop coworker.  You could tell him “I have to work now”, turn your back on him, and put on earphones with your music cranked up and he’d STILL stand there and talk, and talk, and talk.  We finally had to go to our boss and then to our bosses’ boss to get him to SHUT UP.  I once saw him stand and talk for 4 hours straight and never said a damn thing that wasn’t “small talk.”

Oh yeah, he was a contractor and the person in change of the contact loved him and he got a performance award.  I left for another office soon thereafter…

Comment #89: Woodrowfan  on  03/31  at  04:57 PM

What was your point? (shrug)  I was just amused.  And I find the discussions in this thread interesting….

Comment #90: Woodrowfan  on  03/31  at  04:58 PM

Yes, we google a candidate when we hire, but a few naked pictures, or postings about sexual orientation, hardly warrant a raised eyebrow.

I’ve also checked facebook and myspace on potential hires.  That said, the family law unit at my old employer used to really nail some of their adverse parties by using the AP’s myspace pages against them.

Comment #91: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  04:59 PM

And by the way? I am sick and tired of other people trying to shame me for not being a social butterfly like they are. This human does not want human interaction with *you*. That does not make me a bad human, it makes me a different human than you are. Extroverts who are comfortable with the existence of introverts don’t bother me, but extroverts who are convinced that anyone who isn’t spending every waking minute talking to a human being is a broken creature who could be replaced with a robot… you guys can cordially fuck off and die.

I’d like to second what Alara wrote.  Well said..

Comment #92: Woodrowfan  on  03/31  at  05:01 PM

I have a phone phobia (self-diagnosed, of course). I cannot stand talking on the phone. I’m much more comfortable talking in person, email or text. There is one friend and a couple family members who don’t use text or email, so I do talk to them, but rarely.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful. I do realize, it’s out in the public domain, really. I’m not sending nakey pics to my husband over my phone, for sure.

Comment #93: BookishBelle  on  03/31  at  05:06 PM

But Skumanick said it could encourage potential defendants to use the federal court system to evade state charges

Well I should hope so.  When a state prosecutor is violating a citizen’s Constitutional rights, they should go to the federal courts.

What I love even more than the fact that the 3 teens won, is that the judge granted a temporary restraining order against the prosecutor.  Skumanick still doesn’t get it, but he’s just been pwned.
———————

Amanda, phylo thinks you shouldn’t be so caught up in your work that you aren’t smiling!  You should evaluate every situation minutely, and then, politely as possible, inform someone that you do have pressing business elsewhere.  And you should smile.  You’d look so much prettier if you smiled!  See?

Seriously, phylo, you’re trolling.  It’s ugly.  STFU and smile.

Comment #94: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/31  at  05:06 PM

I have a phone phobia (self-diagnosed, of course). I cannot stand talking on the phone. I’m much more comfortable talking in person, email or text.

Bingo, only I can do it very well for work situations. Personal calls, on the other hand, are fucking nemesis.

Comment #95: Auguste  on  03/31  at  05:08 PM

Richard Goblin,

Yeah, law is a problem.  Nothing like a thousand years of precedent impacting ten years of information explosion.  I hope it will sort itself out soon.

Comment #96: gorobei  on  03/31  at  05:09 PM

And by the way? I am sick and tired of other people trying to shame me for not being a social butterfly like they are. This human does not want human interaction with *you*. That does not make me a bad human, it makes me a different human than you are. Extroverts who are comfortable with the existence of introverts don’t bother me, but extroverts who are convinced that anyone who isn’t spending every waking minute talking to a human being is a broken creature who could be replaced with a robot… you guys can cordially fuck off and die.
Alara J Rogers on 03/31 at 03:41 PM

See how easy that is, Alara?  Now, if I worked with you, I would really appreciate you having the courage to give me that speech when I said “Hello” and dared to follow it up with a “how are you.” It would have saved me the attempts at human interaction.  In person, that stone cold face would have left no room for doubt about either the extreme introvert or cold hard bitch.

But no, instead, you’ll just email and leave me to think that you are a regular human who was overworked?  supershy?  insecure?

Sort of like women or men who won’t give a direct “sorry, not interested in you” response to a date, but instead come up with plausible excuses or previous commitments and close with a “some other time” and then charge harassment when asked again.

Comment #97: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  05:11 PM

people are using text and email as a shield - you don’t get comfortable negotiating human interactions without practice.  I guess the term could be willfully Aspbergian.

You start with this statement but respond to Amanda with,“What a self-centered narcissistic viewpoint” and “What a horseshit ethic you’ve got there , girl.”

You my want to consider more practice or more technology ‘cause you suck as it stands now. Maybe people are just using their “shields” when you show up?

Comment #98: Danzig  on  03/31  at  05:14 PM

Yeah, law is a problem.  Nothing like a thousand years of precedent impacting ten years of information explosion.  I hope it will sort itself out soon.

LOL.  (Don’t hold your breath, gorobei.)

Comment #99: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  05:14 PM

To all the people who claim that texting and e-mail aren’t really human interaction, don’t you think people used that same argument when telephones became common?  Just because you don’t really understand the interaction doesn’t make it less valid than another type that you are more used to.  And as for texting and grammar, not everyone writes in only abbreviations.  And honestly, it’s not like English grammar, spelling, and vocabulary have never changed until just now when people started texting.

Comment #100: bananacat  on  03/31  at  05:15 PM

Seriously, phylo, you’re trolling.  It’s ugly.  STFU and smile.
Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 03/31 at 04:06 PM

Seriously, Caren - you’re attempting to put words in my mouth.  I see it happens quite often on this blog.  And attempting to open up a discussion about whether or not a new technology is an unmitigated good is now trolling - so go talk to your mirror - seems that’s the only conversation you want.

Comment #101: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  05:17 PM

Sort of like women or men who won’t give a direct “sorry, not interested in you” response to a date, but instead come up with plausible excuses or previous commitments and close with a “some other time” and then charge harassment when asked again.

Honestly, you’re embarrassing youself. You might want to think about cutting your losses and calling it a day on this thread.

Comment #102: Bitter Scribe  on  03/31  at  05:24 PM

You my want to consider more practice or more technology ‘cause you suck as it stands now. Maybe people are just using their “shields” when you show up?
Danzig on 03/31 at 04:14 PM

Let’s see Amanda started out by equating a reluctance to text or email with “fogyism” or an unwillingness to try something new - a phobia.  Even with her asterisked caveats, it was insulting to dismiss those who consider losses as well as gains when adopting new technology. I found that pretty insulting.   

I consider this mode of InterNet communication a way of keeping technology in it’s appropriate place,  an exchange of pure idea unfettered by the ties of non-virtual community - i.e. human society.  In other words, talk to the avatar.

People putting (cellphone/texting) shields up is a habit today - not directed at individuals, but an isolating, ever-present cocoon - so, your assumption that I’m taking it personally or that it is directed at me in real life is mistaken.

Comment #103: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  05:31 PM

phylo:

Yes, it does make you less of a social (as in living in a society) being. You are using a technology as your next post shows to defend yourself from interactions instead of using direct means. You’ve done nothing to register with the guy harassing you, just put up your cellphone shield - burqa anyone?

I’d like to offer you a kind, social, very-interested-in-you-as-a-human-being “fuck off and die.”

Anyone who’s too unutterably stupid to see the inherent hypocrisy in using a form of communications technology to lecture people about how communicating with people via communications technology automatically makes them a social reject probably doesn’t have any opinions worth listening to.

Also, there’s only one kind of person who argues in all seriousness that women are necessarily obligated to be nice to the men who harass them.

Comment #104: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/31  at  05:33 PM

What I find embarrassing, Scribe, is the “gotta get an insult in, but refuse to deal with the argument.”

Comment #105: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  05:35 PM

See how easy that is, Alara?  Now, if I worked with you, I would really appreciate you having the courage to give me that speech when I said “Hello” and dared to follow it up with a “how are you.” It would have saved me the attempts at human interaction.  In person, that stone cold face would have left no room for doubt about either the extreme introvert or cold hard bitch.

Indded, if only all those bitches would be more polite they would realize what a nice guy you are.

Criticizing texting… on! a! blog! *head asplody*

Comment #106: banisteriopsis  on  03/31  at  05:35 PM

phylo:

And attempting to open up a discussion about whether or not a new technology is an unmitigated good is now trolling

And if that’s what you were doing, you might have a point. But it’s not, so you don’t.

You don’t get to claim that people are putting words in your mouth when you’re the one who’s lying about what you said.

Comment #107: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/31  at  05:36 PM

Also, seriously?

Quoting Kant in an argument about text messaging?

I can’t think of anything more pompous.

Comment #108: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/31  at  05:38 PM

Also, there’s only one kind of person who argues in all seriousness that women are necessarily obligated to be nice to the men who harass them.
Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster on 03/31 at 04:33 PM

What’s nice about “Fuck Off, you worm” or some such? Unless of course you get off on that sort of thing.

Comment #109: phylosopher  on  03/31  at  05:38 PM

To all the people who claim that texting and e-mail aren’t really human interaction, don’t you think people used that same argument when telephones became common?

 

I haven’t seen that claim made in this discussion, catgirl.  Who made it?

I noted that they are “thin interactions” that miss layers of nonverbal communication like body language and tone of voice.  Skype and iChat (relatively new) are superior to the telephone, and the telephone (somewhat new) is superior to the letter (friggin’ ancient) when it comes to conveying nonverbal communication.

Just because you don’t really understand the interaction doesn’t make it less valid than another type that you are more used to.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘valid’.  What does it mean for a form of communication to be ‘valid’?  Do you mean something like ‘acceptable’?  My main concern has been efficiency of purpose.  Negotiation through texting is not acceptable.  Doing a voice call at a theater is not acceptable.  If you mean ‘acceptable’ I would argue that acceptability is a function of the nature of the communication and the conditions under which you are attempting to communicate.

  And as for texting and grammar, not everyone writes in only abbreviations.

Thankfully this is true.

Comment #110: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  05:41 PM

It’s a very thin form of human interaction.

It’s a very *efficient* form of human interaction

You lose body language, facial expression, tone of voice in email, texting, and IMing.

So you lose some extraneous stuff that sometimes you don’t need, which makes it a more efficient tool in some contexts.

In texting, you also lose grammar and spelling (e.g. ‘R U redi 2 go @ 7?’ in my inbox now).

“redi” is a form of spelling. It’s just not the one you’re comfortable with. As for grammar… let me laugh. Grammar IS language. If there was no grammar there would be no message.

I know what makes you uncomfortable with texting. It’s because it’s more akin to speech than it is to writing. Speech is not structured. Speech is not standardized. Speech is chaotic and more messy than you are comfortable with. Every small town and subculture has its own manner of speech, whereas writing has been sanitized and standardized by centuries of bureaucrats.

See the problem with Luddites is this: new technology IS by definition superior to the old ways, because A+B > A. Before you could do A. Now you have the *choice* to do A *OR* B. So the worst case scenario is that B is crap and you just go on your merry way doing A, so you haven’t lost anything.

Comment #111: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  05:41 PM

I consider this mode of InterNet communication a way of keeping technology in it’s appropriate place, an exchange of pure idea unfettered by the ties of non-virtual community - i.e. human society.

Phylosopher is aware of all InterNet traditions.

Comment #112: Raging Red  on  03/31  at  05:46 PM

I’m always texting people when I’m having a good time.  “We’re at this bar!” “Come to this house!” “Where are you?  Everyone wants to see you!” This is because I am uncomfortable negotiating human relationships.  Phylo had it right the whole time.

By contacting people who you claim you want to see in person, you are passive-aggressively showing you don’t like them.  Or else you’d show up at their house and stare at their front door until they came out.

Comment #113: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  05:49 PM

phy, you were wrong, you randomly decided a bunch of people on the internet were friendless so you could shame them, you got called out, and now you’re flailing around trying to pretend that you didn’t accuse people of being anti-social because they spend a lot of time talking to friends.  Next: how writing dirty notes to your lover when she’s out of town shows that you secretly hate sex.

Comment #114: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  05:51 PM

@ RR, lols.

Also, can we please have a new rule that people who don’t understand Asperger’s have to shut the fuck up about Asperger’s? I really hate to ask, but my BF has Asperger’s and I’m just getting so tired of seeing it used as shorthand for being a rude, anti-social, libertarian jerk-off. He works very hard to be kind, social, and normal and - frankly - I’m sick and tired of seeing his condition used on the InterNets as some kind of insult. Please.

/bleeding heart

Comment #115: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  05:51 PM

Your bias is showing, dear.

Your condescending sexism is showing, honeypot.

Comment #116: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  05:51 PM

Also, your startling lack of basic social skills, phy, inclines me to think that perhaps you’re jealous that no one wants to text with you.

Comment #117: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  05:53 PM

Look, if you’re a 16yo dude interested in seeing racy pics of 14-18yo’s, or even a better developed 13yo, you are not a pedophile. You are normal.

Comment #118: Bacopa  on  03/31  at  05:56 PM

I know what makes you uncomfortable with texting. It’s because it’s more akin to speech than it is to writing.

It strikes me that his main problem is that it disallows him the space to impugn on people’s basic politeness to waste their time and harass them.  Which is why he’s forced to troll blogs.

Comment #119: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  05:56 PM

Amanda, why can’t you be more polite and tell that harrasser to fuck off instead of using your burqa (WTF?!?) of a cellphone shield?

Comment #120: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  05:58 PM

phylo:

Also, there’s only one kind of person who argues in all seriousness that women are necessarily obligated to be nice to the men who harass them.

What’s nice about “Fuck Off, you worm” or some such? Unless of course you get off on that sort of thing.

Wow. You’ve missed the point by so much that the light from the point will take 10,000 years to reach you.

Comment #121: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/31  at  05:58 PM

phylosopher, if he has even a point, is laying the blame on the technological rather than the social. Alienation is a function of capitalist modes of organisation. To blame the few technological advances that paliates the problem for causing it is, to put it frankly, wrongheaded. If there was no texting, people would still not be talking to their neighbors and colleagues.

Comment #122: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  06:02 PM

This thread is seriously the funniest thing I’ve seen all day. Thank Elvis I got stoned before I came across it. Part of what makes it so funny is that all day today, I texted (?) with a friend. She’s in her early ‘20s and types in that “txt spk” sort of way I am a good 12 years older, and partly because I used to consider myself a writer, I’m something of a stickler for grammar and clear, if occasionally whimsical, sentences. She’s humongously busy with college so we don’t have much face time, she doesn’t care to email and neither of us care for talking on the phone, so text is what we got.

I used to get bent out of shape over lax grammar in emails. Boy, am I glad I got over that nonsense.

Comment #123: Matt T.  on  03/31  at  06:03 PM

BlackBloc:

So you lose some extraneous stuff that sometimes you don’t need, which makes it a more efficient tool in some contexts.

I agree, and in fact this was my point in the earlier and subsequent posts.

I know what makes you uncomfortable with texting. It’s because it’s more akin to speech than it is to writing.

Whoops.  You assumed that I am uncomfortable with texting; you are wrong.  And how do you get that I am uncomfortable with speech when I have been arguing that people need to use speech in various situations?  Please actually read what I’ve written before arguing with it.

See the problem with Luddites is this: new technology IS by definition superior to the old ways, because A+B > A. Before you could do A. Now you have the *choice* to do A *OR* B. So the worst case scenario is that B is crap and you just go on your merry way doing A, so you haven’t lost anything.

This is just incorrect.  Let’s go step by step.

new technology IS by definition superior to the old ways

‘By definition’?  Sorry, by definition it is merely ‘new’. 

As for ‘superior’, that often depends on the use you have in mind.  (I assume that you are not really making some sort of bizarre argument that new technology is somehow superior simpliciter to old technology.)  The contemporary engine in my Toyota is superior to an old school VW Bug when it comes to fuel efficiency and emissions control.  On the other hand, I can actually do major repairs on an old school VW Bug by myself with tools I have in my apartment, so in this respect (simplicity of engineering) the VW Bug is certainly superior.

because A+B > A

Let A = 5 and B = -10.  Then A+B < A.  Wrong again.  (Yeah, yeah.  It’s a cheap shot.)

Before you could do A. Now you have the *choice* to do A *OR* B. So the worst case scenario is that B is crap and you just go on your merry way doing A, so you haven’t lost anything.

Joking aside, I know that this is what you are really getting at, and I agree.  If I am at the theater and want to know if you are still coming, then texting is appropriate.  If we are trying to agree which show we want to see, then we should probably discuss in realtime (voice call, IM, skype, in person).  I like the options.  But trying to negotiate something via email with someone two offices away is selecting the wrong tool for the job.  A and B is better than just A, but does mean that you have to put some effort into choosing the right one for the job.

Comment #124: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  06:06 PM

Guy goes to dinner party.  Spouts off about Kant and new technology.  Offends host and is seen as pompous by many others.  Tells women they need to speak up for themselves and just tell him to fuck off if they don’t want to talk to him.

Several folks tell him to fuck off and STFU.

Guy gets offended that people aren’t being nice to him.

My head hurts. 

Add in the irony of this not being a dinner party but a BLOG and the guy is spouting off about how CMC pushes us all apart.

My head, it explodes.

Comment #125: nashe  on  03/31  at  06:08 PM

Seriously, Caren - you’re attempting to put words in my mouth.

No, I just think you fail in reading comprehension.

You are a condescending prick in this thread.  It was ugly, and damn it if I haven’t given into troll-feeding the thread-jacker anyway.

You didn’t understand the bit about “Smile!  You’re prettier when you smile!” at all did you?  I guarantee you every woman on this thread did.  It’s not putting words in your mouth; it’s putting your argument in perspective.

You think being called a “bitch” is the worst that can happen if you tell a stranger on the street to stop bothering you?  Ha.  That’s the least.  First of all, no woman should have to respond to any random man who speaks to her.  Fuck no.  Why?  Secondly, we do respond b/c we have to evaluate the situation:  is it going to be being called a bitch, which isn’t fun, but might be the end of it?  Or will I be followed?  Or will he throw something?  Is it safer to smile and say ‘hi’?  Or will that “lead him on” too much?  Will it be quicker to pretend to be on the phone?  Or will that piss him off?

The fact that men do scream names at women who don’t sufficiently suck up to them, the fact that they hurt them physically sometimes, means that all interactions with male humans actually carry quite a bit more thought than you are granting the women on this thread.  Essie nailed you the first time with the privilege that drips off your posts.

Smile, phylo.  You’re so much prettier when you smile.  C’mon. Smile.


Not smiling?  Dick.

To bring this back to the topic?  Fucking prosecutor wanted to edumacate these teens on proper submissive female behavior, even though the classes allowed for “non-traditional jobs”.  Don’t ever let anyone take a picture of you at a slumber party or when you’re wearing a bikini, you sluts, b/c then you’re just asking to be raped.  And it will be your fault just like this child porn is all your fault and not that of the boys who were distributing it.

Comment #126: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/31  at  06:11 PM

It strikes me that his main problem is that it disallows him the space to impugn on people’s basic politeness to waste their time and harass them.  Which is why he’s forced to troll blogs.

Ouch.  But hey, don’t let what I actually wrote get in the way of your commentary on it.  (And yes, it is regrettable, but the person behind me with the whip is forcing me to troll blogs.  I apologize, but I really don’t want to get beaten again.  Please bear with me.)

Comment #127: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  06:12 PM

What’s nice about “Fuck Off, you worm” or some such? Unless of course you get off on that sort of thing.

This is just pissing me off so much.  Still.

What makes you think that saying “Fuck off, you worm” is an effective thing to say to a random guy who has decided to harass you?  Seriously?

The absolute best response you can expect from that remark is to be called a bitch or cunt.  More than likely, it will get worse, b/c the worm will demand the respect he thinks he deserves.


Seriously fuck off you privileged fuck.  Is that direct enough for you?

Comment #128: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/31  at  06:22 PM

every single thing phylo says is condescending. calling amanda girl and dear, scolding her for not talking to some stranger in the elevator. little man, get over yourself post haste. you’re one step from yelling about the kids on your lawn, and treating grown-ass women like naughty children is a good way to ensure no one thinks you have anything of value to say.

Comment #129: chibi  on  03/31  at  06:23 PM

Somehow, before that breastfeeding thread, I never noticed phylosopher to be so condescending, judgmental and tedious. But it seems to be a general trait of phylosopher, regardless of the topic. (And I think phylosopher is a she, folks.)

Thanks for derailing what started as a pretty interesting thread.

Comment #130: chingona  on  03/31  at  06:34 PM

Also, can we please have a new rule that people who don’t understand Asperger’s have to shut the fuck up about Asperger’s?

De-lurking to say “Thank you” for this!  My son has AS and it gets really tiresome seeing how often the condition gets used as a proxy explanation for others’ anti-social behavior.

On topic, I lay plenty of blame at the feet of the news media and our pandering “lawn order” political culture in many areas for the ridiculous over-reaction to anything that might be a child-sex related issue.  It’s a serious issue, certainly, but it’s portrayed as though every person your child interacts with may be out to get them.  Too much over-heated panic is masking the real danger.  And, as was said above, this prosecutor needs to be disbarred.

Comment #131: Samurai Sam  on  03/31  at  06:41 PM

Samurai Sam:

I lay plenty of blame at the feet of the news media and our pandering “lawn order” political culture in many areas for the ridiculous over-reaction to anything that might be a child-sex related issue. It’s a serious issue, certainly, but it’s portrayed as though every person your child interacts with may be out to get them.

Moral panics over teen female sexuality were happening long before our modern news media and political culture were even dreamed up, much less actually implemented. They don’t help the problem, certainly, but they don’t cause it, either.

Comment #132: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/31  at  06:49 PM

Am I the only person who set up predictive text on their phone so that they can easily type text messages that at least closely approximate standard English?  I have one remaining friend who texts like a nine year old, and I’m pretty sure it’s because he’s too much of a luddite to figure out how to enable predictive text.

BTW, I had a text exchange with my roommate while typing this comment.  Rather than him calling me up, us chatting for a while, then talking for a few minutes about what to have for dinner, three texts had it all sewn up.

Comment #133: The Opoponax  on  03/31  at  06:51 PM

“Telling the harasser to fuck off means risking being called a bitch. “

yeah, what’s the big deal, ladies? my privileged male self doesn’t get it. why wouldn’t you want to make your own life easier and ignore someone with an excuse? you’re duty-bound to tell that asshole to go away and take the consequences for rejecting his attention! that’s how this sounds. that you think she’s getting away without consequences when she dares to not want to talk to a stranger. so she has to tell him no and be called a bitch, or harassed, or threatened! she can’t get away with ignoring the one with the dick, dammit.

seriously, go away, phylo-troll. you are a sexist ass.

Comment #134: chibi  on  03/31  at  07:02 PM

But trying to negotiate something via email with someone two offices away is selecting the wrong tool for the job.

This is wrong.

It has already been explained to you why it is wrong.

Do I need to type out what C-Y-O-A means? Does MickEss need to explain (again!) that the big boys and girls sometimes need attachments and screenshots?

Seriously, you sound like the worst guy in my office - the one who insists on paper copies of EVERYTHING - and then loses them because he’s got too much paper in his cube.

Comment #135: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  07:07 PM

basically, phylo, most of us don’t consider a harasser worth our time or energy, so why in good god’s name would we waste our time acknowledging someone we don’t know or care about either way? why let the tool think he actually matters?

Comment #136: chibi  on  03/31  at  07:15 PM

Look, if you’re a 16yo dude interested in seeing racy pics of 14-18yo’s, or even a better developed 13yo, you are not a pedophile. You are normal.

I dunno, when I was in HS (I’m 29) dating two grades below you was cradle robbing. And the HS guys who were dating middle schoolers? Pervs.

Comment #137: banisteriopsis  on  03/31  at  07:27 PM

It has already been explained to you why it is wrong.  Do I need to type out what C-Y-O-A means? Does MickEss need to explain (again!) that the big boys and girls sometimes need attachments and screenshots? Seriously, you sound like the worst guy in my office - the one who insists on paper copies of EVERYTHING - and then loses them because he’s got too much paper in his cube.

Either you need a reading comprehension course or you are being a deliberate pain in the ass.  I am talking about actually coming to an agreement about something.  Exchanging documents is not negotiating.  While it is often necessary to the negotiation. 

Consider the following.  I email Jane, writing “send me your proposed settlement agreement.”  Here, the appropriate tool is email.  Jane can hit reply at her leisure (efficient), attach the document (efficient), and email all 40 pages of .doc or .odt goodness (efficient and paper free).  I read said document - on the screen (I hate printing stuff out).  Now, as it turns out, I have several disagreements with some of the clauses.  I have two options.  I can pick up a phone and call Jane and try to resolve the issues.  Or I can engage in an ongoing email correspondance about what needs to be changed.

In my experience, most of these problems will be resolved in about 20 to 30 minutes via phone.  That will be much quicker than dealing with tons of email on the subject.  Oh, but I probably will email Jane to set the time for the call.  However, if it takes more than 3 emails to resolve this, I will probably call her to set the time to conduct the final negotiations.

So there you go Essie Elephant.  Minimal paper, optimal use of time via the magic of using the right tool for the right job.  And I rarely print things out, and prefer people to send me electronic documents.  Now that you’ve shot off your mouth and gotten it all wrong, you can either apologize or your can go fuck yourself.  Either is fine.

Comment #138: Richard Goblin  on  03/31  at  07:43 PM

Ok, seriously, email is pretty much the best thing ever invented.  I work in publishing, and at last count I have (a) 135 active (not-yet-published books) projects that (b) can take as long as 5 years to come to fruition and (c) involve the collaboration or input of people all over the friggin’ world.

So yes, having everything in a text-based form that I can access in perpetuity, that is full-text searchable, is pretty much a godsend.

Richard, in your comment above, when commenting on legal negotiations—that is exactly the kind of thing that I want in writing.  I’ve had several incidents of “I never agreed to that and you put it into the contract anyways” that have been silenced by producing the email where, indeed, the person did agree to it.

Comment #139: LauraB  on  03/31  at  07:57 PM

Um, one part of this debate seems to be that there is a lot of willful misunderstanding going on about the nature of various workplaces. Unless everyone on this thread works in the same corridor, isn’t there some mileage as to how and why you’d email someone ?

Comment #140: other_orange  on  03/31  at  08:04 PM

Now, as it turns out, I have several disagreements with some of the clauses.  I have two options.  I can pick up a phone and call Jane and try to resolve the issues.  Or I can engage in an ongoing email correspondance about what needs to be changed.

In my experience, most of these problems will be resolved in about 20 to 30 minutes via phone.

And in MY experience, after I make the changes you requested over the phone, you later deny the whole conversation ever happened and I get in trouble with our boss.

That is why I am telling you that your smug “in person is always best for the situations I define” is WRONG because it is an absolute and a very, very stupid one.

Do you understand the concept of <u>Your Mileage May Vary</u>?

Comment #141: Essie Elephant  on  03/31  at  08:10 PM

Richard,

Fuck off, you worm.

Direct enough?  Are you and phylo sock puppets?  Your example is stupid, as Laura B beat me to mentioning, and doesn’t refute anything Essie said.

Apologize yourself, or fuck off.  Either.  But, c’mon and smile.  You look prettier when you smile!  C’mon, I know you can do it?  Why so grumpy?  Just smile. 

Why won’t you smile?  Especially since I already told you to fuck off twice.  You should still smile. 

You’d better smile, bitch.  You’d better fucking smile.

You don’t want to smile?

I’ll give you something to cry about then.

Comment #142: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/31  at  08:14 PM

I’m still stuck on the notion that texting or emailing precludes the possibility that the person doing it ever speaks to other humans.  I personally do all of the above.

Comment #143: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  08:35 PM

And why is the phone superior?  Isn’t the phone just another device people use to put distance between themselves and others, or is it grandfathered in under the “doesn’t count if I use it/it was invented before I was born” law?

Comment #144: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  08:36 PM

Amen Laura B. and Essie. Gawd - do Richard and phylosopher work in some perfect environment with idealistic people who never try to weasel out of agreements, etc. Or just nice people who forget shit? Not to mention their other problems with how real people deal with reality. YMMV indeed.

Comment #145: Elizabot  on  03/31  at  08:37 PM

Okay, taking the bait.

Richard:

Yes, everything in your scenario makes sense, except for one crucial step you left out:  After your conversation with Jane, you send her an email verifying the changes.  This ensures that nothing was misunderstood, and allows corrections to be made.  It also cover your ass (CYA) in case Jane “forgets” (or genuinely forgets) and later wants to object.

For people like me who aren’t good on the phone, fewer mistakes tend to be made when this entire process is done via email.  Plus, it has the added bonus of recording every step in the process—again, CYA.

Back on topic:  The prosecutor should lose his job.  I know that people frequently confuse “persecute” and “prosecute,” but the man was hired to do one thing, and apparently confused it with the other.

That said, is there any legal remedy for a girl who texts or emails pictures to a boyfriend, assuming that they will be kept private, and the guy then posts them for the world to see?

Comment #146: Karinna A.  on  03/31  at  09:35 PM

My son (the younger) took HomeEc. When asked why by schoolmates he pointed to the 8 to 1 Girl/Boy ratio with a smile. He did learn to cook, and simple sewing. I think he regretted the learning to cook stuff when he was roped into doing 1/3rd the cooking in our 3 person household when he still lived at home. But at least we trained him well for his eventual wife.

And Richard Goblin? Most of the troll bashing you’re responding to isn’t even directed at you, but to Phylo. You might want to chill out, or at least ask if you’re the intended recipient.

Comment #147: KMac  on  03/31  at  09:37 PM

They should teach Moll Flanders and Pamela. The book itself was a much older invention, but the idea that ordinary people could own books that weren’t copies of the Bible, that were for amusement, was novel (if I may pun) in the 18th century, and through the 19th “novels” (by which the concerned moralists generally meant romances) were thought bad for women and girls. The administrators of boarding schools for young ladies in the 19th century doubtless spent their time confiscating “novels.”

Comment #148: sara  on  03/31  at  09:50 PM

richard, as an attorney—what essie said.  of course, this is why you always send a confirmation email following up on a phone negotiation session so you’ve got a record of what went down.

honestly though, as invaluable as the phone can be in negotiating, it’s not always the most practical either.  sometimes it’s better to look at someone’s proposed changes and think about them for awhile and reply back to an email instead of calling.  sometimes people misspeak over the phone or say things that aren’t the most articulate, whereas with an email, they might take their time to be more clear. 

also, let’s not pretend there aren’t people you deal with at times who you’ll spend 5 times longer on the phone with because they’re super chatty and/or unfocused than you will typing and reading an email exchange with them.  if your primary goal is to bill as much time as possible well maybe that’s your preference, but i prefer to be efficient in my practice.

Comment #149: chareth cutestory  on  03/31  at  09:50 PM

That said, is there any legal remedy for a girl who texts or emails pictures to a boyfriend, assuming that they will be kept private, and the guy then posts them for the world to see?

Assuming that digital photographs made with a cell phone and transmitted electronically are considered legally identical to other photographs made with other kinds of cameras and transmitted in other ways, the girl in question would at least have control over the image via rights to her likeness.  If it’s a self-portrait, she would be considered the legal owner of the work, period. 

Assuming all this is true, someone who found nude/sexual/titillating photographs of themselves made public would at least be able to sue the unauthorized distributor for damages.  The main obstacle would probably be any sort of implied permission to distribute the images.

Comment #150: The Opoponax  on  03/31  at  09:58 PM

What a self-centered narcissistic viewpoint.  That smalltalk is how we get to know others.  How we bond with them as uhm, human beings as opposed to information systems.

But thanks for sharing, Amanda.  Now I’ll know that if I get a text or email from a colleague, instead of a phone call or visit, that, I’m on the B-list - you know, that they see me only as a means to their info, not a real human being.

At my workplace, we are REQUIRED to get all requests by email. If they call us up on the phone and request something, I have to ask them to send everything they just told me to my email. This is because we have been sued before by clients claiming we billed them for stuff they never requested, and we won the lawsuits due to proof we had in email. So our boss made it a rule - get an email from them before you do ANYTHING.

If I ask my programmer, who is in the office right next to me, to do something, he says, “Email it to me or i won’t remember!” When my boss (who is only two doors down) has a long list of shit for me to do, it’s way more efficient for him to email me than come in and list it all to me, which would then require me to be taking notes while he says it. (we do it both ways, but honestly i prefers when he emails it.) This doesn’t mean I don’t think they are human….

Also, me and my boyfriend text each other all day long. We can have a text convo going the whole work day. I would not be allowed to call him and chat for a few hours while working….  This does NOT mean I’m trying to avoid my bf, or put up a shield or somesuch. This means I want MORE contact with him.

I frequently make plans with friends via text. I don’t even answer my phone during work, so if you want to contact me during a work day, text is the way to do it.

In all of these examples, email and text is FAR superior to face-to-face contact. And I’m really failing to see how it’s narcissistic.

Comment #151: slingshot  on  03/31  at  10:05 PM

<blockquote>If I ask my programmer, who is in the office right next to me, to do something, he says, “Email it to me or i won’t remember!” When my boss (who is only two doors down) has a long list of shit for me to do, it’s way more efficient for him to email me than come in and list it all to me, which would then require me to be taking notes while he says it.</bockquote>

SO true. In my experience “it’s faster on the phone” really means it’s faster for you to tell me, so I have to write it down for you.

Comment #152: banisteriopsis  on  03/31  at  10:23 PM

But, yes, the ancient Greeks did have pornographic pottery and the capacity to record controversies about same.  They just didn’t invent pottery.
The Opoponax on 03/31 at 08:39 AM

No, they didn’t. (Invent pottery, that is—they had porn galore…anyway the Romans at Pompeii certainly did!)

But it was just a couple days ago I was poking around Wikipedia, some article about the Neolithic or earlier—IIRC I got there via our last BSG discussion.

Let’s see if I can find it again…
...no, not the same text I remember yet, probably because I started looking again in “Neolithic” while the earliest ceramics I remember being referenced were actually much older—25,000 BCE—I should be looking in “Mesolithic” or more likely “Paleolithic!”

Anyway, the article on “Pottery” includes a historical section which references the Gravettian culture; these people were apparently the earliest ceramicists known.

And illustrates a typical sample of Gravettian pottery thus!

If you go to the Gravettian article (which is little more than a stub) you’ll find a similar statue illustrated there.

Pornography or religion? You decide; I’ll go with the “both/and” option. As they say at TV Tropes, porno-tech is Older than Dirt.

Or as Bill Mauldin’s GI’s Willie and Joe put it to a callow young fellow soldier,

“Take your hat off when you talk about sex, mister! It’s a reverent subject…”

Drat, I can’t find an on-line version of that particular cartoon. But the very first link for Mauldin’s “Up Front!” cartoons I found was to a set put up by none other than onetime Pandagonian Bellatryx!

Why yes, I am enjoying my new Firefox add-on BBCode, why do you ask?

Comment #153: Mark Foxwell  on  03/31  at  10:33 PM

phylosopher, how is your trust fund is doing now that the market tanked?

I’m having a hard time believing that you work outside the home or ever have had to.

Oh, and we should stop talking about texting because it is insensitive to straw people who don’t have fingers and can’t text.

Comment #154: Ms Kate  on  03/31  at  10:53 PM

Out of curiosity, Amanda, how would you react if it was her boyfriend taking naked pictures of her?

Comment #155: noc  on  03/31  at  11:48 PM

Mark, my point was that, since we have no writing from circa 30,000 years ago when pottery was invented, we have no way of knowing what anyone thought about pottery remains we may have access to today.  We can surmise that someone must have used that particular form of technology to facilitate sex in some way*, but we don’t have access to discourse surrounding this.  We don’t have the pearl clutching “Clay: Miracle Mud Or Scourge Of Our Virgin Daughters?” media to prove how anyone felt about the pornographic pottery.

*It would be really weird if this didn’t occur to anyone, after all.

Comment #156: The Opoponax  on  04/01  at  12:04 AM

I think he just has the old-fashioned “must control girls so they don’t have sex!” “

Longhairedweirdo, I think that you and Amanda are saying pretty much the same thing, though she’s using hyperbole.

Well… just to be clear, I was specifying girls, not women. I don’t know if he’s anti-sex so much as anti-teen-girls-having-sex.

It’s *still* horribly nasty, using the power of the criminal courts to try to enforce your own views of what’s appropriate behavior. But he might not give a damn what happens once a woman hits majority.

Really, I probably could have just not said anything. I’m not sure I care about the difference all that much.

Comment #157: LongHairedWeirdo  on  04/01  at  12:06 AM

noc, your weird attempt to “trap” me is based in your profound misunderstanding of the average woman’s intelligence, due to deceitful propaganda you’ve sucked up.  I’m not stupid, and unfortunately for you, I don’t “hate men” or whatever you hope.  Of course a young man who engages in sexual play with full respect for his partner’s privacy deserves the same common sense understanding.  If anything, I commend a young man who rejects the strong pressure to be an asshole and a) ask obviously stupid questions like yours predicated on the premise that women who want equality are evil and b) that he should humiliate his girlfriend and take advantage of a strong double standard.

I’ve heard that young men do this, too.  I haven’t heard of them getting prosecuted for taking nude pictures of themselves, and suspect strongly the first who does will be gay.

Comment #158: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/01  at  12:20 AM

Out of curiosity, Amanda, how would you react if it was her boyfriend taking naked pictures of her?

Huh? I don’t see how that changes anything? Are you asking how she would feel if instead of her taking pictures of herself and being prosecuted, her bf took the pictures and she was prosecuted? or are you asking how she would feel if the bf was prosecuted for taking pictures of her?

Either way, I still don’t see how it matters. If you are a child, you should NOT be prosecuted for child pornography, period. That’s just stupid.

And if you are a teenage boy, I would say seeing your teenage gf in a bra is pretty normal. Hell, you could just go to the beach and everyone can see all the teenagers in similar amount of clothing.

Comment #159: slingshot  on  04/01  at  05:38 AM

As Dilbert says, always postpone meetings with time-wasting morons.

Sorry, we’ll have to talk later, phylosopher.

Seriously, my ethics say that I am being paid for my time when I’m on the clock. Not to socialize, but to be productive. I don’t want personal calls on my work time. I will happily socialize on break, after work, or at designated socializing times at work (potlucks, for instance). I’ll even socialize if things are slow and bonding is actually one of the more useful things we can do with our time. I love socializing if we are both in a position to work and talk at the same time, such as teaming up on a physical project.
But I feel like I’m doing something immoral—like I’m stealing from my employer—if I’m wasting time that *should* be devoted to getting the massive amounts of work that need to be done, done.

Comment #160: Samantha Vimes  on  04/01  at  07:16 AM

“But trying to negotiate something via email with someone two offices away is selecting the wrong tool for the job.”

Or you know, as a hearing impaired person, selecting exactly the right tool for the job because the person two offices away does not sign and has a beard so lip-reading is very difficult and often inaccurate.

As a deaf person, I love email. No longer am I at the mercy of ambient noise, arseholes who turn away when they speak (even though you have politely requested they not do this due to your disability), being mocked for misunderstanding the conversation etc etc etc. Email is a blessing for me, as is text messaging. If you’re too rude to communicate with me in a way which makes me comfortable and is easy for me, because being in your presence is supposed to make me warm and happy, then that’s your loss.

Comment #161: Crass  on  04/01  at  09:09 AM

“...small talk before you get down to business…”

uh, it seems logical, Amanda, but no… small talk is actually a *major part* of doing business

a key part, actually

you don’t get far in any corporate setting (including universities and state offices) without being somewhat adept at interpersonal politics

that’s why it’s nearly always more effective to settle things face-to-face or by voice than by email or text; email is convenient but it is also “cheap”; face time means you give a shit about your goal - asking about your bosses’ kids makes her less inclined to say no to what you propose… etc.

Email is *efficient*, but not so *effective*

Comment #162: wapsie  on  04/01  at  11:19 AM

asking about your bosses’ kids makes her less inclined to say no to what you propose

Funny. In MY office, asking about my boss’ kids makes him wonder why I’m wasting his time talking when I should be working.

Why am I not surprised that you, wapsie, do not understand the concept of <u>Your Mileage May Vary</u>?

Comment #163: Essie Elephant  on  04/01  at  11:21 AM

Essie, it’s becoming abundantly clear from the lack of “in my office” and the profusion of “what YOU should do” that the person saying dumb things like this is all about the *theory* of modern office life and workplace communication, but nothing about the *reality* of office and workplace communication.

In other words, we are being lectured about how to conduct our office discussions by somebody who has no clue.  Maybe, instead, they should be listening to us since we are the ones with jobs and they might need to know how to navigate one in reality sometime soon!

Comment #164: Ms Kate  on  04/01  at  11:26 AM

sounds like noc is yet another person who assumes that young women cannot consent to sexual activity, even photography by their boyfriend. 

It isn’t the taking of the picture that is the problem - it is the distribution of the picture.  Unfortunately, the subject of the picture and the taker of the picture were prosecuted while the real problem was the distribution of the picture.  No attempt was made to punish the distributors, even though they caused the problem!

Comment #165: Ms Kate  on  04/01  at  11:31 AM

by the way, the assumption on this thread that if you have some skepticism about the value of a newer medium of communication, then you’re some kind of crank or fogey, is disappointing, but not surprising… it’s already been pointed out in so many words that the medium we’re using pre-determines the message…

(funny, too, how environmental concerns are conspicuously absent from discussion of digital technology - do all human beings really NEED a cellphone? do video screens, their toxic contents, their energy consumption, need to be everywhere? - but normally arise when we talk about older technology, like automobiles)

Comment #166: wapsie  on  04/01  at  11:38 AM

okay, essie, fine, your boss is a uptight twit, and in your office it’s all about being direct

don’t know why you need to be personally insulting about it, but whatever turns you on (and the YMMV line could be nicely applied to the post from A.M. that I was responding to)

it doesn’t destroy the larger point - lots of doing business *successfully* and at a high level involves sociability. I’ll bet your boss isn’t so blunt with his superiors

speaking of varying mileage, being an extreme introvert, I don’t like this reality at all, because dealing with other people is painful and exhausting for me

but I’ve found it to be more the case than not

Comment #167: wapsie  on  04/01  at  11:49 AM

Waspie, I don’t text except to return messages, but I see the intrinsic value of e-mail as both a memory and scheduling aid, and a written record of what was said to whom and when.  These features are invaluable when dealing with way too much information on a daily basis.

Comment #168: Ms Kate  on  04/01  at  12:58 PM

do all human beings really NEED a cellphone?

If you are in US and want a job, yes. How can you be contacted by employers without a phone?! How can you do ANYTHING without a phone? Am I supposed to just drive somewhere and talk in person to everyone rather than calling? that sounds like more of a waste than calling, to me. Plus, people these days EXPECT you to call first, not just show up wherever they are to talk to them.

do video screens, their toxic contents, their energy consumption, need to be everywhere?

I don’t know about EVERYWHERE, but I certainly need some to interact with my computer. Or do you want to go back to punch cards?

Comment #169: slingshot  on  04/01  at  05:28 PM

it doesn’t destroy the larger point - lots of doing business *successfully* and at a high level involves sociability.

Why does it sound like you think email is NOT social? I socialize via email all the time. You can ask about kids in an email. I see my boss does that in emails to clients.

Just because the socialization is done different now than before doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Comment #170: slingshot  on  04/01  at  05:30 PM

Dear Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes:

Sorry, but I am not a sock puppet of phylosopher.  He or she agreed with one point I made in passing but I am pretty sure that he or she and I are talking about different issues.  I was talking about efficient communication strategies - particularly people using email and texting when speaking (in person or over the phone) would take less time and effort.

But hey, why bother distinguishing between posters right?  Just make blanket accusations of sock puppetry and tell people to fuck off.

Whatever.

Comment #171: Richard Goblin  on  04/01  at  06:24 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.