One of my New Year's resolutions was to no longer make fun of Britney Spears on my blog.
Fortunately I never said anything about Jamie Lynn.
Presumably you've heard that copies of a photo of Jamie Lynn breastfeeding were made and some sleazebag is trying to make money from them. Since she is only 17, the photos are considered child porn, so both the seller and his buyers are going to be in big trouble.
But I can't help but question what other new mom celebrity would be dumb enough to try to get her pictures developed at a Wal-Mart in a hick town? Isn't that pretty much asking for the pictures to wind up on the internet? Or in the private collections of creepy old men who like underaged girls?
Some might say that 17 year olds aren't exactly known for their great decision making skills. I would agree. Except that we allow them to raise children. I mean, they can't vote or drink or get tattoos without parental permission. In some places their driving is restricted. I don't think they can rent apartments on their own. Nude pictures, or even partially nude pictures of them, are considered child pornography.
How can pictures be considered child porn when the subject is being allowed to RAISE A CHILD?
Don't get me wrong, I think people who even look at child porn should be chemically castrated. But if, as a society, we say that it's okay (or even admirable) for a 17 year old to raise a child, than should we still be calling that 17 year old a child? Parenting is a challenge that confers instant adulthood, isn't it?
Any thoughts?
