The War on Child Porn: A witch hunt?

boi pron #1

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6503/36amorv.jpg

boi pron 2

http://www2.comune.roma.it/museicapi..._giovannib.jpg

boi pron 3

http://www.vakantieinitalie.eu/la_do...caravaggio.jpg

These prurient, filthy, and overtly pedophilic paintings of boys (which were all painted from models) are also some of the greatest and most influential examples of 17th century Western art. I'm pretty sure that if Caravaggio were to try to pain them today, he'd be prosecuted for pedophilia.

Now don't get me wrong: I am firmly against the sexual abuse of children. However, I can't help but feel that the crusade against pedophilia has really gone too far.

For example, if anyone merely receives an image of, say, a naked child, even without request or consent, the recipient can be convicted of possessing child pornography according to most states' laws.

Likewise, if a teenager takes a pictures of herself/himself and sends it to, say, her or his boyfriend/girlfriend, the recipient can be accused of possessing child pornography, even though they are a child themselves!

A cousin of mine who I am not close to has recently been incarcerated for child pornography. Of course, we thought he was really a pederast, but it turns out that he was probably setup by someone that wanted to do him in. The other party sent him some nude pictures of a child, and that was enough to get him convicted.

So... I dunno. What do all y'all think?

With this kind of images, no wonder the Catholic priests were having such hard times with the alter boys. I mean, talk about subliminal messaging! In God's house no less!

No I don't think it has gone too far.
That is to say I think the examples you gave are just examples of over the over stringent legal system we have today. This is not a problem specifically for child pornography but for a great deal of things.

I think this system as a whole has gone too far, but in this particular area I am less willing to say what is over the top.

I'm siding with Woofness on this. There are aspects of the law and it's application that don't work as smoothly as we would wish them to, but I don't necessarily think that this is a good example of that. If your cousin was indeed set up, then it shouldn't be a difficult matter to bring it up to the parole board, or prove that the pornography he did have was sent by another account, and to track down that person.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would highlight an aspect of this case to direct the conversation on. I'm not sure exactly what it is you want the thread to discuss, and I'm also sure I'm not the only one who thinks this. If you could summarize an issue in this, or several, that bear talking about, please do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Also, I would appreciate it if you would highlight an aspect of this case to direct the conversation on. I'm not sure exactly what it is you want the thread to discuss, and I'm also sure I'm not the only one who thinks this. If you could summarize an issue in this, or several, that bear talking about, please do so.

---

Wow, it isn't obvious, or did you not read my post/are you just acting snarky because of comments elsewhere?

Teenagers can be accused of making child pornography for sending pictures of themselves for their boyfriends/girlfriends. Anyone can be convicted of child porn for just receiving a picture without soliciting it.

I should have included this article and others like it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29613192/

Quote:

---

This week, prosecutors in Greensburg, Pennsylvania charged six teens ranging in age from 14 to 17 with creating, distributing and possessing child pornography, after three girls were found to have taken photos of themselves in the nude or partially nude and e-mailed them to friends, including three boys who are among the defendants.

---

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-...3-6157857.html

Quote:

---

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.


...

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.



Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

---

I also brought up the idea that art which eroticses youths and is lauded could be viewed as child porn nowadays if made by a contemporary artist.

This thread is just about laws and attitudes towards child pornography, and whether or not they go too far.





Okay, I made this thread rather hastily in a rather sleepy state, so it's possible that I didn't include enough information, and there was little reason to mention my cousin's situation. But still, thread's subject is obvious. I suppose I made the false assumption that people were actually paying attention to the news, as child pornography laws have been a very active topic of discussion.

This seems pretty straight forward. I'll quote your first link, because it pretty much sums up the problem.

Quote:

---

“The punishment doesn’t fit the crime,” Walters told Lauer, addressing the growing number of teens and young adults being charged as sex offenders for sexting pictures. “These child porn laws were designed to punish a very different behavior. A kid sending a racy picture is a very different behavior than a pedophile forcing a toddler to perform a sex act on camera. That’s what these child porn laws were designed to address.”

---

On the other hand, there is a valid point that unscrupulous and immature teenagers could, theoretically, end up producing pornography of themselves and selling it to... how shall I say, enthusiasts? I'm still of the opinion that people around that age lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts. Some people will react poorly to their nudes being passed around, something that is almost inevitable, considering how long and how volatile high school relationships tend to be.

As a sideline to the girl who committed suicide for having her nudes getting sent around the school and the subsequent bullying (as mentioned in the first article), there was a girl named Sarah who went to a Catholic school in Oshawa who had pretty much the same thing happen. She did a strip-tease video and sent it to friends, who sent it to friends who sent it to friends who turned out to be rivals of Sarah. They printed off posters with screenshots of the video, and added captions like "10 cent whore" "filthy fucking slut" "nasty ho-bag" and other insulting combinations I can't particularly remember. These posters were distributed at random throughout the school, and Sarah, already possessing a reputation for being a disgusting slut (which was well-earned, I have to admit) didn't have much to say about it.

Interestingly enough, neither did the police or the school administration, as there was no outcry about bullying, no charges or investigation of child pornography (lurid in the light that one of the teachers there moved to another school after earning a reputation among the girls for being a lecherous bastard), and I'm pretty sure the incident has pretty much been entirely forgotten.


on the notion of older art eroticizing youth, I'm pretty sure there are cases of photographers doing artistic nudes with underaged models that were accused of creating child pornography, but I can't remember their names, so yes, the stigma is certainly still being applied. I would like to know your stance on the painting, sycld. Do you find them to be works of art, or the lecherous wish of a pervert brought artistically to life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

On the other hand, there is a valid point that unscrupulous and immature teenagers could, theoretically, end up producing pornography of themselves and selling it to... how shall I say, enthusiasts?

---

But the kids being hit with these child pornography charges didn't (as far as I can tell) take nude photos of each other for this purpose. Surely the hypothetical scenario you've thought up here, which doesn't seem to describe the actual cases in question, doesn't justify charging a 16-year-old with child pornography for sending nude pic-messages to her boyfriend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

I'm still of the opinion that people around that age lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts. Some people will react poorly to their nudes being passed around, something that is almost inevitable, considering how long and how volatile high school relationships tend to be.

---

I'd agree with that, but I don't think that it in any way justifies charging them with a kiddie porn offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

on the notion of older art eroticizing youth, I'm pretty sure there are cases of photographers doing artistic nudes with underaged models that were accused of creating child pornography, but I can't remember their names, so yes, the stigma is certainly still being applied. I would like to know your stance on the painting, sycld. Do you find them to be works of art, or the lecherous wish of a pervert brought artistically to life?

---

I'm not sycld, but I'd call them art. It's not like nude paintings were otherwise scarce in the schools of art represented by the paintings in the OP. Subjects were often depicted nude, regardless of their age. If these artists were painting fully-clothed adults but demanding that their child models get naked, it might be different. But that's not how it was. They tended to paint adult subjects just as nude as those kids.

EDIT: Just a side note, thank god we're not SA. There would be no chance of having this discussion on SA without it degenerating almost instantly.

Stats from an online survey of 653 teens: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/s...ch_Summary.pdf

20% of them have sent/posted nude/semi-nude pictures of themselves.
11% of girls 13-16 have done this.

There are details on to whom and why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

On the other hand, there is a valid point that unscrupulous and immature teenagers could, theoretically, end up producing pornography of themselves and selling it to... how shall I say, enthusiasts? I'm still of the opinion that people around that age lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts. Some people will react poorly to their nudes being passed around, something that is almost inevitable, considering how long and how volatile high school relationships tend to be.

---

These kids are not making pornography and selling it on the internet. And so are we going to arrest kids for committing every stupid action that just hurts themselves?

Of course, kids hurting other kids (i.e. bullying) is not a crime. That makes sense.

Quote:

---

As a sideline to the girl who committed suicide for having her nudes getting sent around the school and the subsequent bullying (as mentioned in the first article), there was a girl named Sarah who went to a Catholic school in Oshawa who had pretty much the same thing happen. She did a strip-tease video and sent it to friends, who sent it to friends who sent it to friends who turned out to be rivals of Sarah. They printed off posters with screenshots of the video, and added captions like "10 cent whore" "filthy fucking slut" "nasty ho-bag" and other insulting combinations I can't particularly remember.

---

So your solution would have been to arrest her for making this video. Think about that for a second.

Quote:

---

already possessing a reputation for being a disgusting slut (which was well-earned, I have to admit)

---

And that's completely unnecessary.

Quote:

---

on the notion of older art eroticizing youth, I'm pretty sure there are cases of photographers doing artistic nudes with underaged models that were accused of creating child pornography, but I can't remember their names, so yes, the stigma is certainly still being applied. I would like to know your stance on the painting, sycld. Do you find them to be works of art, or the lecherous wish of a pervert brought artistically to life?

---

One such photographer was Lewis Carroll.

As for Caravaggio, these paintings among others are said to be some of the most influential of the entire Western cannon by other great artists and art experts. So what do you think my opinion of them is, even though they do so unabashedly eroticize young boys?

I do think there are times when the war on child porn sometimes forgets what it is that it is fighting. I have heard horror tales of stupid teenagers sending pictures of themselves around and getting people into trouble. This is not child porn, this is not what the fight should be about. The whole idea about fighting child porn is that in order for it to be made, a child must be abused, therefore the cops go after both supply and demand in order to save more children from abuse.

It should not cover stupid teens thinking it is a laugh to distribute naughty pictures of themselves. Teens acting like this is not the same as a child molestor photographing/recording themselves abusing children, it just isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

But the kids being hit with these child pornography charges didn't (as far as I can tell) take nude photos of each other for this purpose. Surely the hypothetical scenario you've thought up here, which doesn't seem to describe the actual cases in question, doesn't justify charging a 16-year-old with child pornography for sending nude pic-messages to her boyfriend?

---

In this situation, no. But it begs the question of why the photographs are taken in the first place. If they were to be kept private, then theoretically, there is no problem. The issue here is that neither of them possesses the maturity level or foresight to see that those photos will not stay private. There is a reasonable expectation that either the photos will be shown to friends, either in confidence that is possible (I would say likely) to be broken, or out of spite because the relationship didn't go the way they wanted to.

Part of the issue with these cases is that the photographs had been uploaded to a computer and transferred over the internet, or else sent from cell phone to cell phone. The images are getting passed around and transferred, and I don't think it's unlikely that, given enough time and handling, they are just going to be posted publicly, on 4chan for an example.

Now let me temper this. I don't in any way believe that they should be charged with child pornography laws, because those were made to address the child pornographers and the abuse that is inherent in that industry. Those laws are made for a reason, and I understand that. At the same time, I don't think that kids should be photographing themselves nude and sending it out to people. There's something inappropriate about that as well, and it's not just overprudence - it's more the consequences that they'll have to face should (and they likely will) the photos get leaked. Some aren't strong enough to handle the aftermath, as was the case for Jesse Logan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I'm not sycld, but I'd call them art. It's not like nude paintings were otherwise scarce in the schools of art represented by the paintings in the OP. Subjects were often depicted nude, regardless of their age. If these artists were painting fully-clothed adults but demanding that their child models get naked, it might be different. But that's not how it was. They tended to paint adult subjects just as nude as those kids.

---

I was asking sycld about this because he brought up the images and mentioned their history, but still hasn't given any kind of real opinion on them or what he thinks about them, about why he appreciates them as art, and not because he's looking to get a reaction out of everyone with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

These kids are not making pornography and selling it on the internet. And so are we going to arrest kids for committing every stupid action that just hurts themselves?

---

No, but the law has to be reasonable about forseeing possible directions questionable actions can take. As was listed on the majority decision in the second link you gave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Excerpt of majority decision

As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...

Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.

In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the Net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date. The state has a compelling interest in seeing that material which will have such negative consequences is never produced.

---

Now while the computer part seems a little reactionary, like old relics recoiling and responding to something they don't understand, the sentiment is still the same. These kids are to young to understand the consequences of their actions, and how far down the line they will stretch. But you can read all that, so I'm not going to reiterate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Of course, kids hurting other kids (i.e. bullying) is not a crime. That makes sense.

---

And when did I say that? Stop trying to wind me up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

So your solution would have been to arrest her for making this video. Think about that for a second.

---

I didn't say that, but I guess you could pick that sentiment out of what I wrote. No, my intention was to provide an anecdote from my own life and give you the results of what happened there, and to compare that with the reported incident you mentioned in one of your links. Personally, I thought what happened was a little reprehensible, but nothing ever seemed to come from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

And that's completely unnecessary.

---

Not if you knew her. Get off your high horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

One such photographer was Lewis Carroll.

As for Caravaggio, these paintings among others are said to be some of the most influential of the entire Western cannon by other great artists and art experts. So what do you think my opinion of them is, even though they do so unabashedly eroticize young boys?

---

I don't know what you opinion is, that is why I asked you. I'm a little surprised you haven't given any kind of reason for it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

No, but the law has to be reasonable about forseeing possible directions questionable actions can take. As was listed on the majority decision in the second link you gave:



Now while the computer part seems a little reactionary, like old relics recoiling and responding to something they don't understand, the sentiment is still the same. These kids are to young to understand the consequences of their actions, and how far down the line they will stretch. But you can read all that, so I'm not going to reiterate it.

---

Thanks for writing my response to this in the same post:

Quote:

---

Now let me temper this. I don't in any way believe that they should be charged with child pornography laws, because those were made to address the child pornographers and the abuse that is inherent in that industry. Those laws are made for a reason, and I understand that. At the same time, I don't think that kids should be photographing themselves nude and sending it out to people. There's something inappropriate about that as well, and it's not just overprudence - it's more the consequences that they'll have to face should (and they likely will) the photos get leaked. Some aren't strong enough to handle the aftermath, as was the case for Jesse Logan.

---

The counter to this is sex education, not prosecution. Or are we going to start criminalizing unprotected sex and teen pregnancy as well?

Teens taking pics of themselves naked and sending them around is a bad thing, but we're talking about prosecution of this action based on laws meant to protect children from child pornographers. In other words, we're talking about application of the law in exactly the way it is written in the legal codes. If these laws are applicable to these instances, as is born out by the fact that these prosecutions have been successful, then there is obviously something wrong with the law.

Quote:

---

I was asking sycld about this because he brought up the images and mentioned their history, but still hasn't given any kind of real opinion on them or what he thinks about them, about why he appreciates them as art, and not because he's looking to get a reaction out of everyone with them.

---

What sort of "reaction" do you think I'm trying to get out of people, exactly?

Quote:

---

Not if you knew her. Get off your high horse.

---

I misread the statement; I thought it was referring to the girl that committed suicide, not the one you knew.

Quote:

---

I don't know what you opinion is, that is why I asked you. I'm a little surprised you haven't given any kind of reason for it yet.

---

You mean that the opinions of European art scholars and other great European artists is not reason enough? The fact that Caravaggio was a profound influence on such artists as Bernini, Rembrandt, Velasquez, and Rubens is not reason enough to not denounce his works as prurient and lurid?

I have no clue what other reason I'm suppose to give. Do you want me to tell you why I love his art, or why these works are hung in museums as some of the greatest examples of Western painting? Well, why is any artist great or influential? Just try to answer me that question.

The fact is that despite the fact that these are unabashed and overt displays of adolescence eroticized to a shocking extent in my opinion, they are still today touted as some of the greatest works of art produced in the Western European tradition. If you disagree with that statement, you'll have to either contend that they are not great works of art, in which case you have to take on the established art community, or that they are not erotic, in which case I wish you good luck in trying to support such a claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Teens taking pics of themselves naked and sending them around is a bad thing, but we're talking about prosecution of this action based on laws meant to protect children from child pornographers. In other words, we're talking about application of the law in exactly the way it is written in the legal codes. If these laws are applicable to these instances, as is born out by the fact that these prosecutions have been successful, then there is obviously something wrong with the law.

---

I agree entirely. I don't think I've said anything to contrary. Also, perhaps it wouldn't be a difficult amendment to make allowances where all participants are underaged to have the punishment be something more along the lines of rehabilitation rather than serving a full sentence for distributing child pornography. Maybe I am mistaken in thinking that, while the justice system is flawed in this circumstance, it will eventually correct itself in support of common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

What sort of "reaction" do you think I'm trying to get out of people, exactly?

---

You have made your opinion of this forum clear from before its inception, and I wouldn't put it past you to resort to cheap gimmickery in an attempt, if a subtle one, to troll. Since this isn't the case, I dont' really have anything else to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

You mean that the opinions of European art scholars and other great European artists is not reason enough? The fact that Caravaggio was a profound influence on such artists as Bernini, Rembrandt, Velasquez, and Rubens is not reason enough to not denounce his works as prurient and lurid?

---

Ah yes, with my casual knowledge of the history of art, I should have immediately picked up on this. Thank you for pointing that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

I have no clue what other reason I'm suppose to give. Do you want me to tell you why I love his art, or why these works are hung in museums as some of the greatest examples of Western painting?

---

I wanted you to tell me why you liked his art, and what about it made it so interesting for you. It's not strictly on the topic at hand, since it's asking more about the art itself rather than the subject of the painting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Well, why is any artist great or influential? Just try to answer me that question.

---

There are any number of reasons, a few of which are common, but no real quick answer to the question. It's almost always a situational thing, but the common themes seem to be: advancement of technique, satire of technique, peculiar perspective being displayed, new subject matter not seen before and any innovation and combination of those themes.

How do those apply to Caravaggio? I'm pretty sure it's not the eroticization of the models, but then I have no experience or history with visual artists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

The fact is that despite the fact that these are unabashed and overt displays of adolescence eroticized to a shocking extent in my opinion, they are still today touted as some of the greatest works of art produced in the Western European tradition. If you disagree with that statement, you'll have to either contend that they are not great works of art, in which case you have to take on the established art community, or that they are not erotic, in which case I wish you good luck in trying to support such a claim.

---

I can't say I disagree with the statement because I have no foundation upon which to make an argument. I literally know nothing about art history, with the exception of recognizing a couple names and perhaps a couple pieces. My inquiry was for you to explain to me why they shouldn't be considered pornographic and should be lauded as artistic achievements, as well as asking for your opinion of his work and why you feel it resonates and has meaning with you. That's not entirely part of the topic, that last section is more personal curiosity about your taste in art.

Why SHOULD anyone have to explain why art depicting nude figures isn't pornographic? I don't get it at all. Isn't it obvious to any thinking person that nudity =/= pornography?

And sycld, I don't think it's even fair to say that those paintings "eroticise" adolescents, especially not "overtly" and "unabashedly". So yeah, even if coqauvin isn't willing to contend that claim, I am.

EDIT: Frankly, I don't see what the art has to do with the issue of hitting minors with kiddie porn charges for taking nude/sexual pictures. Seems totally unrelated to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Why SHOULD anyone have to explain why art depicting nude figures isn't pornographic? I don't get it at all. Isn't it obvious to any thinking person that nudity =/= pornography?

And sycld, I don't think it's even fair to say that those paintings "eroticise" adolescents, especially not "overtly" and "unabashedly". So yeah, even if coqauvin isn't willing to contend that claim, I am.

---

Well, I suppose that is your opinion. Still, these depicitions of naked youths and others like them have been enough to make Caravaggio's sexuality (as well as that of his patrons') a topic of academic debate.

Quote:

---

EDIT: Frankly, I don't see what the art has to do with the issue of hitting minors with kiddie porn charges for taking nude/sexual pictures. Seems totally unrelated to me.

---

I suppose I wanted to open this discussion beyond merely these laws about child pornography and all touch upon our prudish sensibilities regarding this topic, regarding anything that might be sexual with young children in it as "child pornography," but I guess I failed in that by not providing a strong enough first post.

I knew that there was something in the back of my mind concerning this argument; today I found it. Hidden in one of my ebooks, an article which discusses this very topic (from a position inches closer to sycld than Coq, which is about where I think I weigh in at the moment).
http://www.sssswr.org/prog99/steinberg.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Well, I suppose that is your opinion. Still, these depicitions of naked youths and others like them have been enough to make Caravaggio's sexuality (as well as that of his patrons') a topic of academic debate.

---

Yeah, I'm familiar with the debate on Caravaggio's sexuality, and in fact I'd agree that his body of work, looked at in it's totality, suggests a preoccupation wwith naked boys. What I'm saying, hoever, is that the pictures you posted in the OP aren't, in and of themselves, "overtly and unashamedly erotic". They show naked figures, that's all; the figures aren't doing anything particularly suggestive, they're just standing there with their dicks showing. If that makes them inherently erotic, then a huge portion of art from that period (and others) is "erotic" too. Amor Vincit Omnia isn't any more erotic, in and of itself, than Michelangelo's David, or El Greco's Laocoon, or Perugino's Apollo and Marysas, or any other artistic work depicting nude figures with exposed genitals. After all, as I said earlier, painting figures in the nude was pretty standard procedure back then. It's only when you look at Caravaggio's whole body of work, and see that he seemed to have heavily favored adolescent boys as his nude models, that the sexual dimension at work there is suggested. I don't think that any reasonable person can claim that any given painting of those nude boys is inherently erotic, unless they are prepared to claim that ALL paintings of nude figures are inherently erotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

I suppose I wanted to open this discussion beyond merely these laws about child pornography and all touch upon our prudish sensibilities regarding this topic, regarding anything that might be sexual with young children in it as "child pornography," but I guess I failed in that by not providing a strong enough first post.

---

I guess it seems to me that striving for broadness in that way is counterproductive, because it just makes the ensuing argument multi-directional and unfocused. I do see the connection you were trying to make, but to me, the issue of charging minors for child porn and the issue of whether 17th-century nude paintings can be called "child porn" aren't closely linked enough for it to be really effective. Just my opinion, of course. To me, the real point of this thread should be the debate over hitting minors with child porn charges for taking nude pics of themselves, adding in this extra layer of debate over possibly-erotic old paintings just confuses the issue.

I would argue that the three painting sycld produced are indeed sexually suggestive

but that is neither here nor there in this thread, so I won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Yeah, I'm familiar with the debate on Caravaggio's sexuality, and in fact I'd agree that his body of work, looked at in it's totality, suggests a preoccupation wwith naked boys. What I'm saying, hoever, is that the pictures you posted in the OP aren't, in and of themselves, "overtly and unashamedly erotic". They show naked figures, that's all; the figures aren't doing anything particularly suggestive, they're just standing there with their dicks showing. If that makes them inherently erotic, then a huge portion of art from that period (and others) is "erotic" too. Amor Vincit Omnia isn't any more erotic, in and of itself, than Michelangelo's David, or El Greco's Laocoon, or Perugino's Apollo and Marysas, or any other artistic work depicting nude figures with exposed genitals. After all, as I said earlier, painting figures in the nude was pretty standard procedure back then. It's only when you look at Caravaggio's whole body of work, and see that he seemed to have heavily favored adolescent boys as his nude models, that the sexual dimension at work there is suggested. I don't think that any reasonable person can claim that any given painting of those nude boys is inherently erotic, unless they are prepared to claim that ALL paintings of nude figures are inherently erotic.

---

Again, you and I will have to disagree, I suppose. I don't see how you can say that these works don't have an erotic dimension compared to El Greco's Laocoon or Michelangelo's David. I find it striking, for example, in Amor Vincit Omnia, that Eros's arrows are essentially pointing to his crotch, which is highlighted by the bright white sheet it is resting on as well as the configuration of his thighs (which the arrows also reflect). The boy's nipple is also highlighted by both the lighting of the painting as well as its central placement. Bacchus has a "come hither" stare, and the way he is holding the chalice of wine is suggested as an offering to the viewer (of course, that gesture is ambiguous and not neccesarily erotic in itself, but in the context of the painting I think it takes more erotic overtones.)

I'm not sure what else to say, to be honest. Of course his entire corpus of work suggests an even stronger preoccupation with naked boys, but I still maintain that these couple works do have a particular erotic suggestiveness to them that other contemporary works of art did not neccesarily have.

Quote:

---

I guess it seems to me that striving for broadness in that way is counterproductive, because it just makes the ensuing argument multi-directional and unfocused. I do see the connection you were trying to make, but to me, the issue of charging minors for child porn and the issue of whether 17th-century nude paintings can be called "child porn" aren't closely linked enough for it to be really effective. Just my opinion, of course. To me, the real point of this thread should be the debate over hitting minors with child porn charges for taking nude pics of themselves, adding in this extra layer of debate over possibly-erotic old paintings just confuses the issue.

---

Yes yes yes. I realize that this thread was poorly concieved on my part.

Ehh, it's in the eye of the beholder I guess. I think that when people see significance in things like the arrows pointing "essentially" (i.e., "kind of but not really") at Cupid's crotch, or the fact that he's partially sitting on a white cloth, they're seeing what they want to see based on what they know about Caravaggio's reputation and possible sexual preference. I think they're reading in things that they might not read into the same painting if it was by someone else. As for Bacchus' facial expression... I'd describe it as "serene" or "blank", almost the opposite of "come hither". Like I said, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. There's no consensus among actual art historians on this issue, so it's no surprise that we can't agree either. I agree with coqauvin that it's all neither here nor there, though. Shall we all agree to disagree on Caravaggio for the rest of this thread, and focus on the question of how the legal system handles teens taking nude pictures of themselves?

What I really want to know is why 18 is thought of as the magic age in America. There are certainly tons of women in their 20s even who "lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts." Seems weird to me. Most girls from my high school aren't any more or less likely to pass around nude pictures of themselves now as they were back in school at 14 or 15. Sure someone might be able to convinced to do some pictures and it may just happen to be at a time before they're 18, but such a moment could easily occur in someone else after 18, except in one case it's perfectly fine. After puberty when the body is physically ready for sex then they're a woman (or a man). Sure at 18 they're somewhat less likely to be persuaded and "taken advantage of" to do such things, but then again they're WAY less likely to be naiive and be "taken advantage of" at 30, so why not make it that age to consider the slow-maturers?

People are able to make these decisions in their teens. Once your body lets you know you're an adult then it's time to start making adult decisions.

Yeah, that may be, but that law can't work that way for obvious reasons. The law has to pick some magic number, whether it's 16 or 18 or 21 or whatever, when people are entitled to be considered an adult under the law. I know it's arbitrary, but what's the alternative? Have every person reach legal adulthood at a different age, based on when they reach a certain point in their sexual or physical development? Who evaluates that? And what exactly would be the magic point in the gradual process of sexual/physical development that defines sexual/physical adulthood and therefore legal adulthood? You'd have to pick one, and ultimately it would be just as arbitrary as picking a magic age... except it would be a lot more of a hassle to determine when each person had passed that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

People are able to make these decisions in their teens. Once your body lets you know you're an adult then it's time to start making adult decisions.

---

Arguably, the right to make adult decisions should be based on mental development, not physical sexual development. Why does it make sense that the state of your reproductive organs should be what determines whether you are an adult or not? Isn't the state of your mind much more important to your decision-making? It's pretty well established that a person has some degree of mental adolescence well into their 20s, even if they are physically adults by their early- to mid-teens. Your conviction that a person is an adult once they've completed puberty is just as arbitrary as the laws saying that a person is an adult once they're 18 years old.

Ultimately, "adulthood" as a legal and social term is, itself, arbitrary. It's socially constructed; it's whatever we agree it to be. Acting like sexual maturity is the "true" or "proper" definition of adulthood in this sense is just absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Yeah, that may be, but that law can't work that way for obvious reasons. The law has to pick some magic number, whether it's 16 or 18 or 21 or whatever, when people are entitled to be considered an adult under the law. I know it's arbitrary, but what's the alternative? Have every person reach legal adulthood at a different age, based on when they reach a certain point in their sexual or physical development? Who evaluates that? And what exactly would be the magic point in the gradual process of sexual/physical development that defines sexual/physical adulthood and therefore legal adulthood? You'd have to pick one, and ultimately it would be just as arbitrary as picking a magic age... except it would be a lot more of a hassle to determine when each person had passed that point.

---

I agree, I'm not amazing at thinking of alternatives, but how it is currently just doesn't seem to be working that well. Though it isn't very hard to judge such things, there doesn't have to be a particular cutoff point. People have lots of differences from birth, so why not base it on what its purpose is intended for in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Arguably, the right to make adult decisions should be based on mental development, not physical sexual development. Why does it make sense that the state of your reproductive organs should be what determines whether you are an adult or not? Isn't the state of your mind much more important to your decision-making? It's pretty well established that a person has some degree of mental adolescence well into their 20s, even if they are physically adults by their early- to mid-teens. Your conviction that a person is an adult once they've completed puberty is just as arbitrary as the laws saying that a person is an adult once they're 18 years old.

Ultimately, "adulthood" as a legal and social term is, itself, arbitrary. It's socially constructed; it's whatever we agree it to be. Acting like sexual maturity is the "true" or "proper" definition of adulthood in this sense is just absurd.

---

I'm not sure why it's so absurd. If someone's not mentally able by the time their body is, then they have much bigger problems to worry about. The point is that it's not the state of the reproductive organs solely, but that the mental development goes along with that. People are really capable at any double-digit age of understanding everything involved, it just depends on what discussion they are exposed to and if they actually think about things. So by the time they are developed sexually they very much ought to be mentally ready to make the decisions. Perhaps its harder now in a culture where we are saying that you can be a complete dumbass up until your 18th birthday and you won't have to worry about having your pictures spread around because anyone that does so will be put in jail and get tons of unnecessary hate from people about it.

Switching, however, to a mentality that allows people to make these ridiculously basic decisions will in turn make them capable of making these very basic decisions before 18 (assuming they're not able already).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

I'm not sure why it's so absurd. If someone's not mentally able by the time their body is, then they have much bigger problems to worry about. The point is that it's not the state of the reproductive organs solely, but that the mental development goes along with that. People are really capable at any double-digit age of understanding everything involved, it just depends on what discussion they are exposed to and if they actually think about things. So by the time they are developed sexually they very much ought to be mentally ready to make the decisions. Perhaps its harder now in a culture where we are saying that you can be a complete dumbass up until your 18th birthday and you won't have to worry about having your pictures spread around because anyone that does so will be put in jail and get tons of unnecessary hate from people about it.

---

It is a little bit different depending on the culture you're in. Most of the 'mentally unprepared for sex' stuff deals with the social ramifications, and some of it is improperly using sex for something, either as a tool for manipulation, or as a route for escapism or a false sense of intimacy. This isn't something I would say a 10 year old (who conveniently fits the 'any double digit age') would be able to handle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

I agree, I'm not amazing at thinking of alternatives, but how it is currently just doesn't seem to be working that well. Though it isn't very hard to judge such things, there doesn't have to be a particular cutoff point. People have lots of differences from birth, so why not base it on what its purpose is intended for in the first place?

---

I'm not sure what you mean; how would this system work, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

I'm not sure why it's so absurd. If someone's not mentally able by the time their body is, then they have much bigger problems to worry about. The point is that it's not the state of the reproductive organs solely, but that the mental development goes along with that. People are really capable at any double-digit age of understanding everything involved, it just depends on what discussion they are exposed to and if they actually think about things. So by the time they are developed sexually they very much ought to be mentally ready to make the decisions. Perhaps its harder now in a culture where we are saying that you can be a complete dumbass up until your 18th birthday and you won't have to worry about having your pictures spread around because anyone that does so will be put in jail and get tons of unnecessary hate from people about it.

Switching, however, to a mentality that allows people to make these ridiculously basic decisions will in turn make them capable of making these very basic decisions before 18 (assuming they're not able already).

---

I guess before this conversation goes any further, we should clarify exact what decisions we're talking about here. What exactly are you saying that people are capable of before they're 18? It seemed like in your previous post, you were saying that people ought to be considered legal adults well before they turn 18, on the basis of some physical or sexual criteria. I disagree with that, but I do agree that there are some things that people younger than 18 are capable of handling.

However, you are flat-out wrong when you say that mental development goes along with physical development. To repeat what I said in my previous post, a person's mental development into an adult isn't complete until they're in their mid-20s. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. The parts of the brain that are responsible for rational decision making are still not fully developed at age 18 or even age 21 for most people. If you think a 14-year-old has fully developed decision making faculties just because they're sexually developed, you are wildly deluded; a person at that age is mentally still very much a child despite their state of sexual development. I'm not saying young people shouldn't have any rights to decide things for themselves, but yes, it IS absurd to try and pretend that sexual development automatically equals decision-making abilities. Biological fact is against you on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

What I really want to know is why 18 is thought of as the magic age in America. There are certainly tons of women in their 20s even who "lack the foresight and maturity necessary to deal with the potential ramifications of either nude photos of themselves, or photos of them engaging in sexual acts." Seems weird to me. Most girls from my high school aren't any more or less likely to pass around nude pictures of themselves now as they were back in school at 14 or 15. Sure someone might be able to convinced to do some pictures and it may just happen to be at a time before they're 18, but such a moment could easily occur in someone else after 18, except in one case it's perfectly fine. After puberty when the body is physically ready for sex then they're a woman (or a man). Sure at 18 they're somewhat less likely to be persuaded and "taken advantage of" to do such things, but then again they're WAY less likely to be naiive and be "taken advantage of" at 30, so why not make it that age to consider the slow-maturers?

People are able to make these decisions in their teens. Once your body lets you know you're an adult then it's time to start making adult decisions.

---

The pure reason why 18 is the "magic age" is just for legality purposes. There is no real age where somebody passes into adulthood. One only enters adulthood when they accept the social challenges put before adulthood and stop acting like a child

I considered myself a child up until around later November of last year, I finally got with the program, started acting responsibility, started planning for my future, etc. Many people are physically matured when they are 17/18, but cannot accept the emotional aspects of being an adult until they are much older than that. I have met several people who are or nearing 30, who act like emotionally insecure 2 year olds.

It is too hard to place a law in that aspect, so, somebody somewhere in time, decided 18 was a good enough age to be considered an adult.

And as far as the original subject matter of this thread goes: I agree art is art, but I find art of nude children to be disgusting. I know I personally do not want to see a child naked in either a photograph or a painting. And because of the fine line between "pornography" and "art" in photography, I just prefer to not have child nudity in them period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kal El

The pure reason why 18 is the "magic age" is just for legality purposes. There is no real age where somebody passes into adulthood. One only enters adulthood when they accept the social challenges put before adulthood and stop acting like a child

I considered myself a child up until around later November of last year, I finally got with the program, started acting responsibility, started planning for my future, etc. Many people are physically matured when they are 17/18, but cannot accept the emotional aspects of being an adult until they are much older than that. I have met several people who are or nearing 30, who act like emotionally insecure 2 year olds.

It is too hard to place a law in that aspect, so, somebody somewhere in time, decided 18 was a good enough age to be considered an adult.

---

True, in this day and age more than ever, it seems that if anything people reach "adulthood" later. While too many children take their physical maturity at face value and begin having sex even at age fourteen or prior, very few are mentally mature. Case in point, my half-sister. She turns 22 in a couple of months, is in nursing school and has two children, yet she is almost entirely dependent on my mother for support and is the epitome of youthful ignorance. She matured early, was pregnant at age 13 and married by the time she was fifteen. I guess she was an adult by some people's standards back then. Even now, it is all I can do to tolerate her lack of raising. Many young people now lead sheltered lives, taken care of by Daddy and Mommy until they are in their Twenties and not being out in the "real world" until they are well past the legal drinking age. By the time I was twenty I had my first kid and thought I had matured greatly over the previous three years. Even with multiple children I spent most of my 20s kind of gliding through life. In the past couple of years I've finally started thinking about the future and even retirement, reflecting on how much growing I still have to do. Hence, I consider many people even my age to be kids. Heck, my ten year old is occasionally capable of making better decisions than my friends. To say that physical maturation should equal adulthood is ignorant at best.

On child porn, it is a matter of perspective and suggestiveness. The human body is a beautiful thing, but as Kal El stated, there is a fine line between art and pornography. Traci Lords was sexually mature and more than capable of acting like an adult in all of her films, though she started at age 15. The fact that she not only appeared to enjoy sex but actually did so on film to entertain the masses may identify her as an adult to some. Reading her book (Traci Lords: Underneath It All), however, reveals a disturbed teenager making mistake after mistake before finally beginning to find herself at the magic age of 18. She made money, owned cars and lived on her own, but was hardly what could be considered an adult. Still, she managed to fool the porn industry for a few years and was obviously enough of an adult to do so. Clueless (but physically mature) teenagers are usually victims of themselves and perhaps a few unscrupulous profiteers who should be prosecuted accordingly; innocent (and undeveloped) children are almost always victims in the truest sense of the word and their manipulators should be sought and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

It is a little bit different depending on the culture you're in. Most of the 'mentally unprepared for sex' stuff deals with the social ramifications, and some of it is improperly using sex for something, either as a tool for manipulation, or as a route for escapism or a false sense of intimacy. This isn't something I would say a 10 year old (who conveniently fits the 'any double digit age') would be able to handle.

---

Why wouldn't a 10 year old be able to handle this? It isn't at all a complicated concept.


Also the question of how the system would work was a question that someone asked. The answer is to have porn depicting people who are underdeveloped be illegal, and that depicting those with adult bodies be legal. This is very straightforward and you can tell pretty easily just by looking. This would also prevent those EXCEEDINGLY stupid charges against people who have sex with girls who are younger than 18 but look like they could easily be old enough, I mean seriously how is a guy supposed to know? Even if asking for ID a girl could just say she never got a driver's license or she may have a fake one. The law should definitely not be so hard to be able to follow. My way is simple and makes more sense.

It's incredibly hard to define 'developed' in this sense.

I know rather a few 'petite' girls who are in their 20s who have trouble convincing shopkeepers they're over 16. The idea of what is 'developed' and what isn't is not set in stone but is instead relative to the relevant person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

Why wouldn't a 10 year old be able to handle this? It isn't at all a complicated concept.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

Also the question of how the system would work was a question that someone asked. The answer is to have porn depicting people who are underdeveloped be illegal, and that depicting those with adult bodies be legal. This is very straightforward and you can tell pretty easily just by looking.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

This would also prevent those EXCEEDINGLY stupid charges against people who have sex with girls who are younger than 18 but look like they could easily be old enough, I mean seriously how is a guy supposed to know? Even if asking for ID a girl could just say she never got a driver's license or she may have a fake one. The law should definitely not be so hard to be able to follow. My way is simple and makes more sense.

---

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".

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.

Anybody can cry wolf and say that they were raped. Even if it's consented sex, all it takes is a scorned person to go and cry wolf.

And honestly I am against sex at such an early age. I can't say for what age I am really for thinking its acceptable, for me I guess I'd leave it as a "don't ask, don't tell" matter. At the age of 16, I would personally hope that those people engaging in such acts would be looking toward the future and the road ahead of them, but unfortunately sex is such a big deal at that age, and ends up with babies on welfare.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

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

---

Yes I do. I just see no point in joining into an argument where my thoughts have already basically been stated by others. I've already stated my opinion on the previous page.

If you really want what should be considered sexually mature, anybody can be sexually mature at any given age between 15 and 20. That is why the age of 18 is decided for legally being an adult, if sexually mature was a driving point to decide what is a child, and what is an adult, we'd probably have a load of 16 and 17 year old women in the porn industry. If you're able to reproduce, then sexually you are mature. Emotionally mature? Not so much. Sexual maturity and emotional maturity happen at different times.

In the eyes of the law, anybody under the age of 18 is considered a minor, and anybody over the age of 18 is an adult. I don't see any point in arguing over what biologically is considered mature. Now that I think about it, what is mature? Human beings are constantly changing, they grow older, they learn more, they change their point of view, and some people could never be "mature" until they are in their sixties. The more I think about it, the more of a stupid argument this entire thing is becoming.

Legally I've been considered an adult for 3 years, but I have only recently been considering myself an adult. Only now am I taking care of my own affairs, actually paying my own bills as opposed to skirting around them. I just can't see where an exact time where a human being is mature can be pinpointed. I just don't. So continue trolling all you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kal El

Yes I do. I just see no point in joining into an argument where my thoughts have already basically been stated by others. I've already stated my opinion on the previous page.

If you really want what should be considered sexually mature, anybody can be sexually mature at any given age between 15 and 20. That is why the age of 18 is decided for legally being an adult, if sexually mature was a driving point to decide what is a child, and what is an adult, we'd probably have a load of 16 and 17 year old women in the porn industry. If you're able to reproduce, then sexually you are mature. Emotionally mature? Not so much. Sexual maturity and emotional maturity happen at different times.

---

I don't "want to know what should be considered sexually mature" and I'm not saying that people should be legal adults once they're sexually mature. I'm arguing against that. I agree with you about drawing the line at 18. I'm trying to get UnreasonablyReasonable to explain his criteria for legal adulthood, since he's the one saying that it should be whenever someone is sexually mature. Why are you trying to explain to me why the line is drawn at 18? Why are you trying to explain to me why doesn't make sense to conflate adulthood with sexual maturity?

This is what I mean when I say it sounds like you don't know what this discussion is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I don't "want to know what should be considered sexually mature" and I'm not saying that people should be legal adults once they're sexually mature. I'm arguing against that. I agree with you about drawing the line at 18. I'm trying to get UnreasonablyReasonable to explain his criteria for legal adulthood, since he's the one saying that it should be whenever someone is sexually mature. Why are you trying to explain to me why the line is drawn at 18? Why are you trying to explain to me why doesn't make sense to conflate adulthood with sexual maturity?

This is what I mean when I say it sounds like you don't know what this discussion is about.

---

I wasn't attacking your points Syme, I should have not quoted you, I was just basically restating facts in this thread so UR would wake up and smell the roses. If a 10 year old can't even handle the thought of handling a girlfriend, I do not believe a 10 year old is sexually mature. I don't know why UR even tried using a 10 year old as a subject of his argument. And I was just raising another question that this entire subject has made me ponder: what is maturity? Obviously I could go look it up in a dictionary, but I don't think I believe anybody is ever "mature."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kal El

I wasn't attacking your points Syme, I should have not quoted you, I was just basically restating facts in this thread so UR would wake up and smell the roses. If a 10 year old can't even handle the thought of handling a girlfriend, I do not believe a 10 year old is sexually mature. I don't know why UR even tried using a 10 year old as a subject of his argument. And I was just raising another question that this entire subject has made me ponder: what is maturity? Obviously I could go look it up in a dictionary, but I don't think I believe anybody is ever "mature."

---

Oh.. in that case, I apologize. I thought you were trying to convince me of the same thing that I was saying to UR.

I apologize for blindly walking into the middle of your discussion. I will be honest, I never read UR's posts in whole. "For obvious reasons."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kal El

I wasn't attacking your points Syme, I should have not quoted you, I was just basically restating facts in this thread so UR would wake up and smell the roses. If a 10 year old can't even handle the thought of handling a girlfriend, I do not believe a 10 year old is sexually mature. I don't know why UR even tried using a 10 year old as a subject of his argument. And I was just raising another question that this entire subject has made me ponder: what is maturity? Obviously I could go look it up in a dictionary, but I don't think I believe anybody is ever "mature."

---

I didn't bring a 10 year old into the subject of my argument. All I said was that people in that have double digit ages are capable of handling concepts, nothing more. I didn't argue and say they should be allowed to do something that they aren't able to. I'm just saying that young people are much smarter than they get credit for.

Also Syme I already agreed with you, so I don't understand why you're trying to get me to explain something that's now irrelevant? Either way sexual maturity is the age at which one can reproduce, looked it up for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

Also Syme I already agreed with you, so I don't understand why you're trying to get me to explain something that's now irrelevant? Either way sexual maturity is the age at which one can reproduce, looked it up for you.

---

I see that you have agreed with me that the best way to handle age of consent in statutory rape cases is to ameliorate the severity of the offense when the adult thought that the child was an adult. However, as I understand it, you have been making a broader argument in this thread--you have been arguing that legal adulthood in general should be tied to sexual maturity. Is this not correct?

And "the age at which one can reproduce" is the narrowest definition of sexual maturity--it's the one a biologist would use--but it's far from the only one, and it was far from clear that it's what you meant. Again, puberty is a process that lasts years. For the record, by that definition, humans can be "sexually mature" as early as age 6.

Unreasonably Reasonable, Syme is not asking a difficult question, although, to be fair, his positing it pushes you into a position to explain yourself clearly, something which you've been unable to do for a good 4 or 5 posts so far. It is a difficult question he is posting, but your own opinion has led to it's being asked - if you post your opinion here, don't be surprised when someone asks you to back it up.

So, back it up. You're only real other alternative is to avoid this thread like the plague, knowing that your only actions here were adopting an almost indefensible stance and being incapable of explaining yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Unreasonably Reasonable, Syme is not asking a difficult question, although, to be fair, his positing it pushes you into a position to explain yourself clearly, something which you've been unable to do for a good 4 or 5 posts so far.

---

i think that a clear explanation is an unreasonably reasonable thing to expect :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Unreasonably Reasonable, Syme is not asking a difficult question, although, to be fair, his positing it pushes you into a position to explain yourself clearly, something which you've been unable to do for a good 4 or 5 posts so far. It is a difficult question he is posting, but your own opinion has led to it's being asked - if you post your opinion here, don't be surprised when someone asks you to back it up.

So, back it up. You're only real other alternative is to avoid this thread like the plague, knowing that your only actions here were adopting an almost indefensible stance and being incapable of explaining yourself.

---

Well actually I already agreed with him, so I don't see what the point is in defending a position I no longer hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syme

However, as I understand it, you have been making a broader argument in this thread--you have been arguing that legal adulthood in general should be tied to sexual maturity. Is this not correct?

And "the age at which one can reproduce" is the narrowest definition of sexual maturity--it's the one a biologist would use--but it's far from the only one, and it was far from clear that it's what you meant. Again, puberty is a process that lasts years. For the record, by that definition, humans can be "sexually mature" as early as age 6

---

and to continue this, you still haven't elaborated at which point we are to be considered 'sexually mature', in spite of your claims that it is glaringly obvious. Your claim is, instead, that we should look it up ourselves and you don't want to regurgitate information. He's not asking you to outline the process of puberty for the sake of outlining the process - he wants you to identify where, within that developmental phase, your definition of 'sexually mature including the mental faculties to handle sex' kicks in.

Well I am going to close this thread; there are no new points in the poorly defined argument that started it, and it has degenerated into browbeating someone who cannot form an argument about to elaborate their stance on a subject they don't understand.