Response Comments, Law and Society
Comment #1: SEXTING
I don’t agree with the premise that sexting is somehow innately wrong. Secondly, I disagree with some of the comments above that suggest, essentially, that young women need to be ‘educated’ to love themselves more in order for them to not send pictures of themselves naked to their partners.
I find sexting to be a logical fusion of new technology and teenagers’ tendency for sexual exploration. The act itself of sexting is not inherently wrong so much as the strict social sanctions placed upon the actor. It was the issue of these social sanctions (bullying) being applied to Hope that caused her to kill herself, not that she consentingly sent the picture to her boyfriend.
Similarly, many smart, young, empowered, women (and men) with high self esteem make choices to be active sexual beings, this includes sending naked photos of themselves to their partners. This act is not inherently “wrong”, in fact it can be quite ‘right’ in the context of a mutually respectful and consensual relationship.
The ‘education’ process should be reserved for all teenagers (and adults, and children) and should focus on being decent human beings by respecting their peers.
Comment #2 STEWART AND COLBERT
On the one hand I can completely understand why progressive activists could be upset that Stewart and Colbert’s rallies have the potential to out number recent ‘real’ rallies (or at least garner more media attention).
On the other hand I don’t think progressive activists should forget their own roots in humor and satire. I also don’t believe the distinction between activism that is ‘unreal’ by the nature of being entertaining versus “real” activism that is hard and filled with drudgery is a line that ought to be drawn.
Political activism can be hard grueling work that can last one’s whole lifetime. In order for people to incorporate and sustain such activism into their daily lives it is necessary to know that a laugh will come along every once in awhile.
Some humorist-activists that should not be forgotten:
* Johnathan Swift and his essay “A Modest Proposal”
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
*Abbie Hoffman and other Yippies
as demonstrated in Chicago 10 by their efforts to turn their trial into a circus
* Most political cartoonists
* Radical Cheerleaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_cheerleading
* The Guerrilla Girls
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/interview/faq.shtml
* Drag king and queen troupes, such as Ann Arbor’s DKR
http://dragkingrebellion.webs.com/aboutus.htm
Comment #3 THE RIGHT TO SPACE
There are very strong parallels between the part of your post describing those who live on the beaches and a NYT article that ran earlier this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04rv.html) about Californian bans on RVs in beach side parking lots. The article mentions how the economic downturn has lead to more people living in their vehicles and yet more cities are enacting bans to oust these people from ‘their’ communities.
Your post is also similar to the request of the Yippies to sleep in Grant Park during the “Festival of Life”/protest against the 1968 Democratic National Convention and my post earlier this week which mentioned the gentrification of gay, urban neighborhoods (I’m fascinated right now about how all of these examples are connecting).
All of these issues concern the question of who owns and controls space or if space should even be ownable. A great characteristic of space as a resource is that its use (excluding agricultural uses) by one person hardly diminishes its ability to be used by another person (except to the extent that it is hard to stand exactly where another person stands).
I think that if we as a society shifted our perspective to view space as more of a shared resource rather than individually owned private property than nomadic/homeless communities and sedentary communities could be better integrated.
I don’t agree with the premise that sexting is somehow innately wrong. Secondly, I disagree with some of the comments above that suggest, essentially, that young women need to be ‘educated’ to love themselves more in order for them to not send pictures of themselves naked to their partners.
I find sexting to be a logical fusion of new technology and teenagers’ tendency for sexual exploration. The act itself of sexting is not inherently wrong so much as the strict social sanctions placed upon the actor. It was the issue of these social sanctions (bullying) being applied to Hope that caused her to kill herself, not that she consentingly sent the picture to her boyfriend.
Similarly, many smart, young, empowered, women (and men) with high self esteem make choices to be active sexual beings, this includes sending naked photos of themselves to their partners. This act is not inherently “wrong”, in fact it can be quite ‘right’ in the context of a mutually respectful and consensual relationship.
The ‘education’ process should be reserved for all teenagers (and adults, and children) and should focus on being decent human beings by respecting their peers.
Comment #2 STEWART AND COLBERT
On the one hand I can completely understand why progressive activists could be upset that Stewart and Colbert’s rallies have the potential to out number recent ‘real’ rallies (or at least garner more media attention).
On the other hand I don’t think progressive activists should forget their own roots in humor and satire. I also don’t believe the distinction between activism that is ‘unreal’ by the nature of being entertaining versus “real” activism that is hard and filled with drudgery is a line that ought to be drawn.
Political activism can be hard grueling work that can last one’s whole lifetime. In order for people to incorporate and sustain such activism into their daily lives it is necessary to know that a laugh will come along every once in awhile.
Some humorist-activists that should not be forgotten:
* Johnathan Swift and his essay “A Modest Proposal”
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
*Abbie Hoffman and other Yippies
as demonstrated in Chicago 10 by their efforts to turn their trial into a circus
* Most political cartoonists
* Radical Cheerleaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_cheerleading
* The Guerrilla Girls
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/interview/faq.shtml
* Drag king and queen troupes, such as Ann Arbor’s DKR
http://dragkingrebellion.webs.com/aboutus.htm
Comment #3 THE RIGHT TO SPACE
There are very strong parallels between the part of your post describing those who live on the beaches and a NYT article that ran earlier this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04rv.html) about Californian bans on RVs in beach side parking lots. The article mentions how the economic downturn has lead to more people living in their vehicles and yet more cities are enacting bans to oust these people from ‘their’ communities.
Your post is also similar to the request of the Yippies to sleep in Grant Park during the “Festival of Life”/protest against the 1968 Democratic National Convention and my post earlier this week which mentioned the gentrification of gay, urban neighborhoods (I’m fascinated right now about how all of these examples are connecting).
All of these issues concern the question of who owns and controls space or if space should even be ownable. A great characteristic of space as a resource is that its use (excluding agricultural uses) by one person hardly diminishes its ability to be used by another person (except to the extent that it is hard to stand exactly where another person stands).
I think that if we as a society shifted our perspective to view space as more of a shared resource rather than individually owned private property than nomadic/homeless communities and sedentary communities could be better integrated.