If Jeremy Hunt’s proposed ban on sexting for the under-18s was met with confusion – how could this even be technologically possible? – there was also derision for him blundering into the arena of youth sexuality at all. Which was fair enough when the criticism came from young people – it’s their prerogative to roll their eyes when a politician starts stumbling gormlessly into their territory, threatening to lay down the law. However, while Hunt’s proposal was wrong-headed and not just on a technological level – so a 16-year-old could have sex, but not sext? – at least he had an age-appropriate response and wasn’t endeavouring to be “cool” and “dahn with the kidz”.
Obviously, kneejerk hysteria about youth sexting would solve nothing. It appears to be mainly teenagers just goofing around, within their own peer groups, pushing the boundaries, in an experimental “behind the bike sheds” fashion. However, there’s the other side of it, where sexting starts forming a Venn diagram with revenge porn, and vulnerable young people can end up humiliated, hounded, even blackmailed and suicidal, particularly with regard to images that don’t always miraculously disappear.
To my mind, such images are a huge generational dividing line, the point where it’s no longer just about youth culture (something for adults to butt out of), but a situation that has the potential to be both sinister and long term. This genuinely alarms me and I’m amazed when other adults are more blase. Would you be comfortable with a topless, naked or otherwise compromising photo of yourself doing the rounds of your social circle, or even beyond, out there in lawless cyberspace, potentially for ever? I imagine not, so why, when schoolchildren go through it, do some people file it under the “kids will be kids” heading?
It’s an attitude that can spread to parents. It seems to be taken for granted that the main problem is fogey-ish adults, including parents, who either hysterically overreact or are out of touch with youth culture. Of course such parents exist, but what about the other kind of problem parent, those who are so keen to display their own switched-on credentials that issues such as sexting and basic child safety become hopelessly muddled?
This isn’t about middle-aged people with hipster beards, gallivanting about on skateboards. There are myriad ways of fighting feeling old and if whizzing around on a micro-scooter does it for you, then go for it. The problem only arises when this tips beyond being a youthful, open-minded parent into a solipsistic, irresponsible one. When parents focus on “the parent I want to be” rather than “the parent they need”. These are the self-appointed breed of “me parents” who roll their eyes and underreact to issues such as sexting, as if being concerned instantly dumps them into some cardigan-and-slippers New Puritan bracket.
There’s no judgment here. I was well on my way to being a “me parent” until I wised up (sobered up?) and had a stern word with myself. In my experience, one of the toughest parental learning curves is acknowledging that “parent” is not just a description, it’s a verb; that it’s not enough just being physically older, you must act it too. And part of that is establishing boundaries that sometimes seem way narrower than strictly necessary, because this, my friends, is where the parental holy grail of “safe rebellion” comes from.
Where issues such as sexting are concerned, this could simply mean remembering to be age-appropriate – not collapsing with the Victorian vapours or screaming: “Jail the child-sluts.” Equally, it might mean not trying to be trendy and non-reactive either. Parents worrying about their kids isn’t something that needs to be “spun” or phased out – it’s the most reliable parental template there is. Basically, if we want our kids to grow up, then perhaps we have to too.
Funny money is no laughing matter
Even as a supposedly pofaced vegetarian, I found the row over the non-vegan £5 note amusing. There has been a popular online petition against the note, but also a bombardment of asides (“Well, don’t eat it then”) and gags about paying in shops with slices of ham. This was Britain at its time-wasting, pointlessly snarky finest, which is increasingly to be celebrated in these challenging times.
The inventor, Professor David Solomon, argued that the polymer note didn’t require cutting down trees and anyway contained very small amounts of tallow, the animal fat found in soap and candles. With respect, the precise quantities are not the point – from the vegan point of view, a product either contains animal products or it doesn’t. “Semi-vegan” makes about as much sense as semi-virginal.
Apart from that, the vegans made a good point. It is ridiculous for money to contain an animal product and to expect people to believe that there was simply no other way of manufacturing a hardy, environmentally friendly fiver.
It’s one thing for vegans to avoid using soaps and candles that contain tallow, but you can’t really avoid money. While they could refuse to handle the fivers, then it would be all about the “melodramatic, petty vegans” and not about the fact that the notes were unwisely made with animal products in the first place.
Very few vegans would have time for the likes of me – I would be denounced as a hypocrite and a part-timer for continuing to consume dairy products, however pathetically I bang on about ethically sourced this and free range that.
Still, I’m delighted to hear that the Bank of England is taking these concerns seriously. Already too many products are steeped in unthinking, automatic animal exploitation, so let’s not bring money into it.
And there I was, thinking Kate Bush was clever
For Kate Bush fans, it was our JFK moment: what were you doing when the news broke that Bush had said in an interview that the prime minister, Theresa May, was “wonderful” and the “best thing that’s happened to us in a long time”?
I had just one thought: “Did all that sozzled ‘interpretive dancing’ in other people’s kitchens mean nothing?” A Bush fan all my life, forgiving many a skintight leotard and tedious yowl-by-numbers track, this was too much.
Nor have I been impressed by arguments in her defence. I started as a music journalist so don’t lecture me about not expecting sage political commentary from musicians (it got to the point where I barely expected coherent speech). As for Bush being a home counties doctor’s daughter – I’d give that breed enough credit not to breezily commend someone just for being a woman, without taking the teeniest peek at their politics.
Let’s be clear, this is not about political differences or shattered expectations, it’s about Bush coming across as a tad thick, displaying all the insight and judgment of a half-peeled tangerine. Now, please leave me to my devastation – the hack with the child in her eyes.
