Thread: The War on Child Porn: A witch hunt?

Originally Posted by Syme

So what exactly are you saying that a 10-year-old (for instance) should be allowed to do, that they aren't currently allowed to do?

Nothing at all.

Originally Posted by Syme

So tell us exactly what criteria you would use to determine this. Give us an approximation of what the law might say; what might be the statuary standard by which the legality of a person's appearance in pornography would be judged? Don't just say "if they're developed, it's obvious when they are"; that's too vague and it's a cop-out. Tell us what specific indicators of development you think should be used.

I'm sure a doctor would be able to tell these to you better. It is just ridiculously easy to judge this without even having to think about it, but go to a medical professional for specific indicators of a developed woman.

Originally Posted by Syme

No, your way is complicated and ambiguous, because it tries to take an arbitrary point in a complex biological process and say that people are "undeveloped" before that point but "developed" after it. It's incredible that you honestly believe that it would be simple to consider people adults once they're "developed". I really don't think you appreciate how much of a bitch that will be to handle. But before I go any further on that point, I'll wait to see your explanation of how exactly you'd judge "development".

The system needs to be "ambiguous" and that's the point. If the girl looks like she's older than she is and consents to sex, then there's not a realistic way to know if it's lawful or not under the current laws.

Originally Posted by Syme

I do agree that it's undesirable to charge people with rape for having consensual sex with a person that they reasonably believed to be an adult; however, the correct solution is to have legal provisions that ameliorate the offense in those cases, not to change the system as you've proposed.

So this is confusing to me, this seems to be quite similar to what I've said. In fact I don't see the difference except in wording.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

Nothing at all.

So what were you saying that a 10-year-old ought to be able to handle when you responded to coqauvin a few posts back? The implication there, I felt, was that there are some things that 10-year-olds currently aren't allowed to do, but that you feel they should be allowed to do because they are prepared to handle it. Correct me if I misunderstood you.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

I'm sure a doctor would be able to tell these to you better. It is just ridiculously easy to judge this without even having to think about it, but go to a medical professional for specific indicators of a developed woman.

Stop dancing around my question and answer it. If it's so ridiculously easy to judge, I shouldn't need a doctor to explain to me how to judge it; you should be able to tell me yourself. You don't have to be a medical professional to know the various signs and stages of sexual development (you should have learned that stuff in school, and if not, just go on Wikipedia and read the "puberty" article to find out). So again: I want you to tell me where in that process you think a person should be considered an adult.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

The system needs to be "ambiguous" and that's the point. If the girl looks like she's older than she is and consents to sex, then there's not a realistic way to know if it's lawful or not under the current laws.

That's not what I mean by ambiguous. I don't mean it allows for ambiguity in enforcement; I mean that your definition of adulthood, that legal adulthood should be based on sexual or physical development, is going to be far more inherently ambiguous, and thus difficult to put into practice, than you seem to realize. Again, before I go any further on this, I'll wait for your answer to the question above--exactly what biological criteria should be used?

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

So this is confusing to me, this seems to be quite similar to what I've said. In fact I don't see the difference except in wording.

It's quite dissimilar to what you've said. You are saying that the concept of legal adulthood at age 18 should be abolished, and instead people should be considered adults whenever they are sexually mature (whatever that really means--you still haven't explained); so that, for instance, it would be legal for an adult to have sex with a girl whenever she reaches that point in her physical development, no matter how old or young. On the other hand, what I'm saying is that sexual consent should continue to be based on a certain age--16 or 18 or whatever--but that the offense of statutory rape should be ameliorated in cases where there the defendant was mislead to believe that the girl was of legal age. Surely the difference is easy to understand?

Originally Posted by Syme

So what were you saying that a 10-year-old ought to be able to handle when you responded to coqauvin a few posts back? The implication there, I felt, was that there are some things that 10-year-olds currently aren't allowed to do, but that you feel they should be allowed to do because they are prepared to handle it. Correct me if I misunderstood you.

All I'm saying is that by the time a person is ten, they aren't incapable of understanding any of these discussed concepts. So by the time they are a little older there is no excuse and no room to say they didn't fully understand what they were doing. It may be true that they didn't fully understand, but that's their fault.

Originally Posted by Syme

Stop dancing around my question and answer it. If it's so ridiculously easy to judge, I shouldn't need a doctor to explain to me how to judge it; you should be able to tell me yourself. You don't have to be a medical professional to know the various signs and stages of sexual development (you should have learned that stuff in school, and if not, just go on Wikipedia and read the "puberty" article to find out). So again: I want you to tell me where in that process you think a person should be considered an adult.

You just said you could look it up, I really don't understand why you want me to regurgitate information you can find on your own. As far as being able to tell you things that are ridiculously easy to judge, I am not able to tell you what is required for something to be brown, but it is not at all a problem for me to tell what is brown, nor is it a problem for anyone who can see colors properly. Though you'd need someone who studied science and actually remembered what they learned to tell you what is the exact distinction between brown and any other color, as I'm not able to tell you. Yes it is possible for me to look it up, there's no reason for me to do so, since if you want to know then just look.

Originally Posted by Syme

It's quite dissimilar to what you've said. You are saying that the concept of legal adulthood at age 18 should be abolished, and instead people should be considered adults whenever they are sexually mature (whatever that really means--you still haven't explained); so that, for instance, it would be legal for an adult to have sex with a girl whenever she reaches that point in her physical development, no matter how old or young. On the other hand, what I'm saying is that sexual consent should continue to be based on a certain age--16 or 18 or whatever--but that the offense of statutory rape should be ameliorated in cases where there the defendant was mislead to believe that the girl was of legal age. Surely the difference is easy to understand?

Ahh, I was confused by the previous ambiguity, but yes now it's clear. I can see that working as well with 16 being the age. In fact that would most likely work quite a bit better.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

You just said you could look it up, I really don't understand why you want me to regurgitate information you can find on your own. As far as being able to tell you things that are ridiculously easy to judge, I am not able to tell you what is required for something to be brown, but it is not at all a problem for me to tell what is brown, nor is it a problem for anyone who can see colors properly. Though you'd need someone who studied science and actually remembered what they learned to tell you what is the exact distinction between brown and any other color, as I'm not able to tell you. Yes it is possible for me to look it up, there's no reason for me to do so, since if you want to know then just look.

I said you could look up an explanation of the various processes involved in puberty; that doesn't mean you can look up anything that will tell you where in the course in those processes a person becomes an adult. That's what I'm asking you to tell me. Yes, we all know what happens during puberty--changes in the voice, development of pubic hair and other body hair, various changes in body shape and musculature, development of the genital organs, development of breasts in girls, and so on and so forth. But this process lasts several years--in fact, taking all development into account, it could be considered to last nearly 10 years. I'm asking you to tell where exactly in this process you would draw the line separating childhood from adulthood. What point in puberty would someone have to reach for you to consider them "sexually mature" vs. "sexually immature""?

It's utterly disingenuous for you to pretend that because the changes that occur during puberty are commonly known, you don't have to explain where your proposed system--considering people to be adults once they're "sexually mature"--would draw the line between childhood and adulthood.

Now stop skirting around the damn question and answer it: At what point during physical/sexual development would you consider a person to be mature enough to be a legal adult?

Originally Posted by Syme

Now stop skirting around the damn question and answer it: At what point during physical/sexual development would you consider a person to be mature enough to be a legal adult?

When they are responsible enough to endure the ramifications of adulthood.

But with people maturing at different paces, there is no clear age, so the cut off is 18.

There. Simple enough.

Originally Posted by Kal El

When they are responsible enough to endure the ramifications of adulthood.

But with people maturing at different paces, there is no clear age, so the cut off is 18.

There. Simple enough.

So I guess you don't really know what's going on in this discussion?