A loophole in the law means that any under-18-year-old taking explicit selfies can be charged with creating and sharing indecent images of children. This is particularly nonsensical in the case of 16 and 17-year-olds, who can consent to sexual acts and relationships, but are unable to take or share erotic pictures of themselves.
After almost 50 years in nursing, it still worries me that not enough emphasis is placed on the 'Three Rs' when it comes to sexual health education in Britain. It seems that we are so keen to teach our young people the mechanics of what is safe and what isn't, that we forget there is so much more they should, and indeed must, know.
What do we see when we look at a naked woman? This week's leak of celebrity nudes suggests that we consider female sexuality and sexual agency to be shameful. By turning a private image of a sexual subject into something public to be leered at and used as pornography, you suggest that women should be sexual objects and nothing more.
If the government is really committed to giving teens the SRE that they deserve, then it should recognise that this aspect of sex and relationships - the pleasurable part - is just as important as the potential dangers. There is nothing wrong with young people wanting to watch porn, wanting to sext, and wanting to have sex.