There is some weight to their argument, topsy turvy as it is. "The sponsors of the bill hope to give young people involved in situations like this a second chance with a diversion program, rather than having them permanently labeled as felons and sex offenders," Klaber says.
'How is it so triggering, so enraging to see my baby with a pierced dimple, but actually knowing a baby is being strapped down and forcibly having his most sensitive portion of his penis amputated, seems perfectly OK? Circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin is the retractable fold of skin that covers the end of the penis, using a surgical scalpel or scissors.'How can society threaten death over one, but encourage and support the other? It is carried out for medical reasons - for example, in the case of recurrent infections; cultural reasons in Jewish, African and Islamic communities, and some people believe it is more hygienic.Enedina is what's known as an 'intactivisit', meaning she is part of a group of people against circumcision and any form of genital cutting of children.She posted the dimple piercing picture to highlight her belief that parents shouldn't have the right to modify their child's body in any way before they're old enough to consent. People would rather continue to inflict an unnecessary and irreversible ritual onto their defenseless infant, than to have to admit that they don't know.'It's NOT cleaner, not healthier, and definitely does not look better.
'But most importantly, it is NOT your body to alter or modify for aesthetic purposes.'Despite the negative reactions, Enedina received an outpouring of support from people who had taken the time to read her post and understood her message. Unpierced dimples are so ugly and they collect all kinds of bacteria.' Vee Savage made a similar point, joking that it's much better to have a piercing as a baby because you won't remember the pain.
(The program would not apply to anyone previously convicted of sexting or of any other sex-related offense.) All courts would be required to devise and operate their own "sexting educational diversion program" and These programs would focus on not just "legal consequences of and penalties for sharing sexually explicit digital materials" but also the effect of sexting "on relationships, the possible loss of educational and employment opportunities, and the possibility of being barred or removed from school programs and extracurricular activities," and "how the unique characteristics of cyberspace and the internet, including searchability, replicability, and an infinite audience, can produce long-term and unforeseen consequences for sharing sexually explicit digital materials." So sexting teenagers might not get labeled child pornographers, but they could still wind up with a criminal record or, at the very least, a lot of court dates and a bullshit DARE-style class on how sexting will ruin their lives. If it passes, prosecutors can still bring child porn charges against minors sharing photos of themselves or possessing pics of their peers.
In fact, prosecutors could still use the threat of that charge to coerce kids to consent to searches, take plea deals on the lesser charge, and so on.
And they added their own sarcastic posts to back her up, with Lisa Weinstein writing: 'I bet she "slept right through it", right? And Melissa Marie added that all body modifications should take place right after birth because babies won't even feel the pain, let alone recall it.
A delighted Enedina fired right back, saying she knows someone who 'hates' her parents because they didn't take her for any piercings as a baby.
(An exception would be made for married couples in possession of pictures of a spouse.) The law defines sexually explicitly material as "any photograph or other visual depiction of a minor who is in any condition of nudity or is involved in any sexual activity." Those found guilty of sexting would be sentenced to eight hours of community service, or whatever (greater or lesser) sentence a court sees fit.