The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2003, 03:14 PM
H8_2_W8 H8_2_W8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Nude 17 Year Old Girls: Child Porn or Art?

A professional photographer was convicted on child pornography charges for taking (and possessing) photographs of nude 17 year old high school girls.

http://www.indystar.com/print/articl...-9288-092.html

These were pictures taken with the consent of the girls because he said he could get them modeling jobs. These girls are old enough to drive, have jobs, but apparently not old enough to decide for themselves if they want to take off their clothes for a photographer? The real ironic thing is that if he had had sex with them instead then that would have been legal (age of consent in IN is 16) but by taking their nude picture he's now considered a sex offender.

I think those creating and possessing child pornography should be prosecuted, but how did a jury consider nude pictures to be porn (or 17 year olds to be children)?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-22-2003, 03:24 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
how did a jury consider nude pictures to be porn (or 17 year olds to be children)?
Local or state laws?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2003, 03:33 PM
H8_2_W8 H8_2_W8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
State statute - creating/possessing obscene images of minors (under 18). In previous articles/tv news stories his attorney said said that while the subjects were fully nude and were minors, the pictures didn't have any content or act that would constitute an obscene image (sexual contact, insertion, etc. I assume) that would be considered pornographic.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2003, 03:39 PM
royjwood royjwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I have a hard time accepting the mental anguish plea by the girls. They were not forced to pose for those fotos, so why the concern now?

But I agree with you, if 16 is the age of consnet and then why should fotos be any different.

However, the link referred to the fotos as sexually explicit.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2003, 03:47 PM
H8_2_W8 H8_2_W8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
I noticed that also, that the report used the term "explicit" in the article. I'm not sure what that means exactly in this case - I doubt that the report saw the pictures so he may have been quoting the prosecutor. Keep in mind the Indianapolis Star is very conservative and is/was owned by Dan Quayle's family.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-22-2003, 04:01 PM
H8_2_W8 H8_2_W8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.a...3&nav=0Ra6DVW5

Here's a more detailed article from one of the local Indy TV stations.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2003, 04:07 PM
Robb Robb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
This seems to be his crime:
Child exploitation; possession of child pornography
Quote:
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) manages, produces, sponsors, presents, exhibits, photographs, films, videotapes, or creates a digitized image of any performance or incident that includes sexual conduct by a child under eighteen (18) years of age;
(2) disseminates, exhibits to another person, offers to disseminate or exhibit to another person, or sends or brings into Indiana for dissemination or exhibition matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child under eighteen (18) years of age; or
(3) makes available to another person a computer, knowing that the computer's fixed drive or peripheral device contains matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child less than eighteen (18) years of age;
commits child exploitation, a Class C felony.
And "sexual conduct" is defined as "sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct, exhibition of the uncovered genitals intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person, sado-masochistic abuse, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with an animal, or any fondling". I'll bet the italicized portion leaves much room to convict the guy.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-22-2003, 04:18 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
So, my first guess was right. The jury found those pictures to be porn because that's what the law says they are.

That's what you were looking for, right?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-22-2003, 04:26 PM
NaSultainne NaSultainne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
My temper gets shorter and shorter every time something like this comes up. Let's be rational about this, shall we?

This 44 year old photographer took nude pictures of high school girls, claiming it would help them get modeling jobs. Not one of the cites indicates this to have actually occurred, which would seem to indicate that he was misleading, at best. Should this man have known the laws applicable in his state? Yes. Ignorance of the law, and so on. That he didn't is not acceptable. Consider the rest of the facts:

Yes, a 17 year old can receive a state issued driver's license, with parental consent.
Yes, apparently the applicable state law designates 16 as the AOC for sexual purposes. This law is not the most directly relevant. Note the actual laws he was charged and convicted of violating.
No, a 17 year old cannot own real estate, vote, or purchase alcohol.

We do not in this society recognize 17 year olds as adults, with adult responsibility and freedom. That this professional photographer wasn't searching for legal adults to pose nude should cause all to question his judgment. If the judge, having heard all the facts in the case, unlike you and I, described this man as "not getting it" when imposing sentence, I cede to his judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-22-2003, 06:01 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 35,327
Child porn is an emotional issue, so logic flies out the window. The law says anyone under 18 is a minor a nude pictures are porn. Period. No exceptions.

Logically, H8_2_W8, you can make a case that this is a bit silly -- the girls can have sex but can't pose for photos. But the law does not allow for exceptions, and any DA who doesn't throw the book at someone is perceived as weak. Plus it's an easy case to get an conviction on, making the DA look good. So whether or not it makes sense, if you do it, you're going down.

Around here, the press is making a big deal about someone who was charged with trying to lure an underaged girl to meet with her for sex. The DA's case was a bit silly (he talked with an undercover cop who posed as a teenager; I'd think a good lawyer could have torn the entire case to shreds), so they got an ajournment in contemplation of dismissal. It was a fairly reasonable way to go, but the press got hold of it (the person was an former arms inspector) and suddenly everyone is scandalized that they didn't throw the book at the guy (and give him a whole ninety days for a misdemeanor charge). Under the current climate, no DA will ever drop a case like this.

However, any adult should be aware of the social climate. Having anything to do with nude photos of a minor is playing with dynamite and it's just plain stupid to knowingly take those photos or even download them onto your computer.
__________________
Author of Staroamer's Fate and Syron's Fate, now back in print.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-22-2003, 06:45 PM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
"how did a jury consider nude pictures to be porn "

You would have to ask them that one. They might have been from a very conservative community. Ironically, they would have to have looked at the photos to determine this.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-22-2003, 07:12 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,593
Many years ago, I bought a guide to nude beaches around the world. It included photos from many of the locations listed. Most of the naked people in the photos were adults, but there were some children and teens.

There's nothing sexual or erotic about any of the photos, and I can't imagine anyone concluding any of the photos were pornographic, but I guess I ought to be careful about who sees that book.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-22-2003, 07:57 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 16,397
RT, I'm not fooling here...

Torch that book, buddy. I'm not promoting censorship here...but that's trouble with a capital T.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-22-2003, 08:22 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 35,327
Jonathan's advice is, sadly, sound. You may not think it's erotic, but you're not the one making the call. The person who will decide will quite possibly be a DA who sees a chance to fatten up his record of convictions.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-22-2003, 08:47 PM
HelloKitty HelloKitty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by handy
"how did a jury consider nude pictures to be porn "

You would have to ask them that one. They might have been from a very conservative community. Ironically, they would have to have looked at the photos to determine this.
What is it that a Supreme Court Justice said about pornography..."I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it" or something like that.

Seems to me that tricking people into taking off their clothes and making false promises should somehow be against the law no matter what the age of the victims. But the fact that he's taking advantage of children deserves to be punished.

My SO told me a story about when he was 16 or 17 (way before he met me), a family friend, an older man from his church invited him over to his house. The man had talked with him before about being photographed, supposedly to practice his photo techniques, and maybe to even send the photos of my SO to a modeling agency or magazines, etc. Since my SO trusted the man, he went over to his house one weekend and went along with the poses he was suggesting, and even stripped naked!!! I just couldn't believe he fell for this, but then again, he was just a kid at the time. He said finally when the man suggested that he come over and adjust SO's private parts, SO finally snapped back to reality and got the hell out of there. Pretty scary. And also, to think that guy probly has pics of my SO hidden somewhere!!! I wonder if that guy was ever caught, probably not...he hid behind the cover of being a church goer, pillar of the community, etc.

It's too bad there will always be predators like that out there, no matter how many of them are caught and end up in jail, there will always be more of them.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-19-2003, 06:12 PM
Skott Skott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
RT, I'm not fooling here...

Torch that book, buddy. I'm not promoting censorship here...but that's trouble with a capital T.
So, should we throw out our copies of American Beauty as well?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-19-2003, 06:24 PM
Skott Skott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
There's also Sally Mann's book Immediate Family which you can find on Amazon, containing nude photos of her children, including on the cover.

If simply having nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is illegal than a lot of us are in trouble, especially with some of our younger family photos. The intent to arouse is the key thing: The nude photos of Brooke Shields were intended as art, but it sounds like whoever this person was was more interested in something else.

Also, parental consent comes in. Brooke's mom okayed her photo shoot; Sally Mann is the mother of the children in the book; and Thora Birch had to have her mom's consent before they would film her topless scene.

Of course, parental consent won't do anything if there is actual erotisicm involved.

Because of that, photos from beaches overseas, nudist guide books, nudist camp photos, family pictures, etc., shouldn't be considered child pornography.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-19-2003, 06:54 PM
II Gyan II II Gyan II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Skott said The intent to arouse is the key thing: The nude photos of Brooke Shields were intended as art

So, sensual overture is not a valid device of "art" ?

Can anyone comment on Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors ?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-19-2003, 07:26 PM
Alereon Alereon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Legally, yeah, its softcore porn. There's clearly no "art" component to these photos, and the guy was a jerk. Realistically on the other hand, the girls in question were 17. By no stretch of the imagination could they be called children, considered unaware of the gravity of the situation, or claim harm from it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-19-2003, 08:21 PM
X~Slayer(ALE) X~Slayer(ALE) is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I feel no sympathy for this man. He failed a simple intelligence test.

*Photograph a nude 18 year old, do not go to jail.
*Photograph a nude 17 year old, go to jail.

how hard is that?

Its like Deer hunting.

*Kill a deer before deer hunting season, pay a fine.
*Kill a deer during deer hunting season, dont pay a fine.

If you get caught for either case, you are way below the acceptable limit of intelligence and must pay for that.

Yes, pornography is defined by whats in the law. You wanna protest that? youre "free" to do so, from behind bars.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-19-2003, 09:11 PM
II Gyan II II Gyan II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by FDISK
There's clearly no "art" component to these photos
I take it, you've seen the photos ? Can you link to them ?

In any case, I'll assume an invisible IMHO before that quote.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-20-2003, 12:00 AM
plain_jane plain_jane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Yeah, really, why didn't he just photograph girls one year older? Not that I condone his behaviour (let me photograph you naked, and I'll get you modelling jobs! Yeah, sure, jerk.)

And I remember being 17 years old. I made a lot of decisions I wouldn't make even a few years down the road.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-20-2003, 02:12 AM
Tristan Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
There are hundreds and hundreds of websits out there with sexual pictures of girls that are purported to be under 18, but they have clothes on (often sheer clothing, or wet clothing, with nipples and other parts barely covered by stickers or well placed arms). These are not illegal, apparently.

I would not judge until I had seen the pictures. American society is ill when it comes to things of this nature. I can walk into my local Tower, and pick up a car magazine that I KNOW often has pictures of girls that are 17 lifting their shirts. But it's a European magazine, so it's ok I guess.

Art is different to everyone. I've had some ideas of pictures of my daughter that would involve her being nude, or in fairy wings or some such (but I'm not a photographer, so I don't bother). Her lines are great, but I wouldn't do it even if I had the skills, because it's the last thing I would need.

I have a friend who does body painting.... he's lech, and I have found him to try to lay any chick he can get his hands on.

But when he's painting, it's different.... it's art, and his whole demeanor changes. It's all about trying to capture the vision in his head..... I didn't believe it till I saw it for myself.

These laws, IMHO, have to much leeway.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-20-2003, 04:41 AM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
in the UK a girl can pose topless on page 3 from the age of 16.
they often do.

i do think it's a bit odd to have the age of consent lower than the one regarding nude photography.

either raise one or lower the other, everything else seems hypocritical.

if a guy can't be charged with statutory rape because one law says the girl can give consent, but he can be charged with child pornography because another says she can't it's a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-20-2003, 04:50 AM
MisterThyristor MisterThyristor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Here's the part of the law that bothers me -- "matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child less than eighteen (18) years of age" -- especially the "depicts or describes" part. That could include printed text, right? So anyone possessing a copy of Lolita, for example, could be charged with a felony?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-20-2003, 07:25 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,253
In the USA it has been pretty much resolved that text is safe in this context.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-20-2003, 07:43 AM
An Arky An Arky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,325
I get kind of irked that people hyperventilate and shout "child pronography" when it's someone in their upper teens. Minors, yes. Shouldn't be messing with them? Abosolutely. But don't tar people with the pedo tag for relations with someone who is, physically speaking, not a child, but more or less in the form of an adult. I think sex with a minor and pedophilia are very different. Both wrong (and rightfully against the law), but very different.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-20-2003, 12:23 PM
Skott Skott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Tristan
There are hundreds and hundreds of websits out there with sexual pictures of girls that are purported to be under 18, but they have clothes on (often sheer clothing, or wet clothing, with nipples and other parts barely covered by stickers or well placed arms). These are not illegal, apparently.
According to (20/20, 48 Hours, Primetime, Dateline, don't remember which), there are Congresspeople who are trying to make these websites illegal (i.e. erotic poses by clothed minors). I think they face an uphill battle though.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-20-2003, 01:00 PM
prisoner6655321 prisoner6655321 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
JRDelirious wrote:
In the USA it has been pretty much resolved that text is safe in this context.
about...
Quote:
posted by MisterThyristor
So anyone possessing a copy of Lolita, for example, could be charged with a felony?
I think MisterThyristor's talking about the Lolita movies.

Quote:
plain_jane wrote:
And I remember being 17 years old. I made a lot of decisions I wouldn't make even a few years down the road.
Jane, do you also remember when you were 18 and you made decisions you wouldn't have made when you were 20?

The age 17 seems pretty arbitrary to me. But that's just IMHO, of course. I don't think these sites are illegal unless it is the intention to sexually arouse anyone. A lot of the legalese isn't defined. What about nude baby pictures? Are they illegal as well? That coppertone ad with the dog pulling down the pants of the toddler... is that child porn?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-20-2003, 01:56 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck
Child porn is an emotional issue, so logic flies out the window.
Ummmm, no, it doesn't. In all the posts inthis thread, I've seen a lot of logic. There is a logic behind the laws, and a complete lack of logic by the photographer.
Quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck
The law says anyone under 18 is a minor a nude pictures are porn. Period. No exceptions.
Wrong again. Re-read Robb's fine post about the actual law. Or you can look it up here.

Quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck
Logically, H8_2_W8, you can make a case that this is a bit silly -- the girls can have sex but can't pose for photos.
It is a touch odd.
Quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck
But the law does not allow for exceptions, and any DA who doesn't throw the book at someone is perceived as weak Plus it's an easy case to get an conviction on, making the DA look good. So whether or not it makes sense, if you do it, you're going down.
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck
However, any adult should be aware of the social climate. Having anything to do with nude photos of a minor is playing with dynamite and it's just plain stupid to knowingly take those photos or even download them onto your computer.
Hey, we agree.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-20-2003, 02:53 PM
Alereon Alereon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Gyan9: No, I have not seen the photos. The guy was collecting nude photos of girls by telling them he would get them modelling jobs. Art can contain nudity, but nudity in-and-of-itself is not art. If he were making art, I think he would have identified it as such to the girls in question. Anyway, yeah, assume an invisible IMHO, seeing as we're IN IMHO
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-20-2003, 02:59 PM
vasyachkin vasyachkin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 657
i think its sad, cuz some girls will get fat by the time they're 18 and we dont get to see their photos

sorry, i just don't care about the moral aspect of it
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-20-2003, 05:38 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
While I disagree with the laws in question, I've got to say it isn't exactly a hard one to follow.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-20-2003, 06:28 PM
kniz kniz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
  • You gotta draw the
________________________________________________
  • SOMEWHERE!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-20-2003, 06:29 PM
X~Slayer(ALE) X~Slayer(ALE) is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by An Arky
I get kind of irked that people hyperventilate and shout "child pronography" when it's someone in their upper teens. Minors, yes. Shouldn't be messing with them? Abosolutely. But don't tar people with the pedo tag for relations with someone who is, physically speaking, not a child, but more or less in the form of an adult. I think sex with a minor and pedophilia are very different. Both wrong (and rightfully against the law), but very different.
Like I said, this is a simple intelligence test. This works for the the "child" as well.

Hey, girlie, why dont you take off your clothes so I can sponsor you to model ....clothes.

They may look adult, they may even be physically adult, but they are NOT adult. Wait the year. If you dont like labeling them Pedophiles why dont we label them something more accurate...

Dumbass
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-20-2003, 06:45 PM
Tars Tarkas Tars Tarkas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
RT, I'm not fooling here...

Torch that book, buddy. I'm not promoting censorship here...but that's trouble with a capital T.
I'm going to disagree here. If it was so illegal, i wouldn't be able to walk into the local Boarders and buy Jacques Sturges books. (or however his name is spelled. that dude who has books with nudist kids in it). Also, i have National Geographics with pictures of kids who are naked. The difference is the bodies are not being exploited sexually (although i have my doubts about Sturges motivations, if that lady who claims they had sex while she was 15 is telling the truth.) I'd try to get cites for this, but i am at work, and would probably get fired faster than Google could load the results page (deservedly so)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-20-2003, 07:58 PM
Skott Skott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
...[T]hey may even be physically adult, but they are NOT adult.
Well, if you're speaking that they are not an adult according to the state law, then that is rather arbitrary, isn't it? If you took them to different countries, they would be a legal adult.

The law is arbitrary and the only thing that truely defines an "adult" is being able to have children.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-20-2003, 09:51 PM
plain_jane plain_jane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by prisoner6655321
Jane, do you also remember when you were 18 and you made decisions you wouldn't have made when you were 20?
[/QUOTE]

Definitely.

I suppose there are two things that bother me: he likely knew the girls were considered under-age where he lives; and the fact he promised them modelling jobs.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-20-2003, 10:16 PM
II Gyan II II Gyan II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by FDISK
nudity in-and-of-itself is not art.
Since we're in IMHO....
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-21-2003, 02:13 AM
Tristan Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Skott- Again, the problem comes up in defining what is "Sexually alluring"? I've seen a lot of the photo's that I've refered to above, and in most of them it's just a big busted girl in a swimsuit or a wet shirt with well placed pockets grinning with her arms in the air. I didn't consider them erotic, and after seeing that the majority of the pics were just variations on that theme, I got bored. Hell, if I didn't think it would cause a problem with some of the mods, I would post a URL or two.

They are exceedingly tame, IMHO.

I have a lady friend who has been working up a modeling career (or is at least trying to). She has been told by more than one photographer that her unwillingness to do "glamour" shots is going to be a handicap. So maybe there is some basis for what he's said..... who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-21-2003, 10:24 AM
galen galen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
A strange country, this USA. If he can convince people to marry off their minor daughters, a man can actually have a child bride .
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-21-2003, 02:02 PM
prisoner6655321 prisoner6655321 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
You mean I can legally marry a 13 year old? No thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-21-2003, 02:24 PM
X~Slayer(ALE) X~Slayer(ALE) is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Skott
Well, if you're speaking that they are not an adult according to the state law, then that is rather arbitrary, isn't it? If you took them to different countries, they would be a legal adult.

The law is arbitrary and the only thing that truely defines an "adult" is being able to have children.
Again, this is a simple matter of knowing what the law allows and does not allow. You want 17 year olds to pose nude, go to the country that allows it. They are protected here in the US, arbitrary or not, its the law. Contempt of the law is not a license to break it. If you think its appropriate here in the US, have the law changed first. I will guarantee you that if you lower the age of consent to 16, there will be some other dumbass who will get arrested for taking nude pictures of 15 year olds. Its not as arbitrary as you claim.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-21-2003, 05:57 PM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
NH, USA, as that url says, a female can marry at the youngest age, but with exceptions:
" Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:58 PM
hyperjes hyperjes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
A seventeen year old is indeed a child. I remember being 17, and while I THOUGHT that I was an adult, looking back, I clearly WAS NOT. The age of consent varies from state to state, but I believe that generally, the two parties must be within certain age guidelines. Taking pictures of naked 17 year old girls may not be quite as disgusting as having sex with them, but it is still WRONG. Even though they had given their consent, as a rule, 17 year olds do not possess the same ability to consider the consequences of their actions as say, a 21 year old. He took advantage of their naivite (sp?) and their hopes of becoming models.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-21-2003, 10:47 PM
don't ask don't ask is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 16,032
Scalini must be pretty stupid since he was previously charged for the same thing with a 15 year old in 1990 and had the charges dropped because she was too scared to testify.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-21-2003, 11:12 PM
prisoner6655321 prisoner6655321 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by hyperjes
Even though they had given their consent, as a rule, 17 year olds do not possess the same ability to consider the consequences of their actions as say, a 21 year old.
hyperjes, by that argument (that having life experience and wits enough to weigh consequenses intelligently equates to adulthood) most 18 year olds and many 21 year olds aren't "adult." either. Shoot, I know 30 year olds that aren't "adults" yet by your reasoning.

I stand by what I said 100%. The age of 18 is arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-22-2003, 05:29 AM
hyperjes hyperjes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Yes, the age of 18 IS arbitrary, prisoner6655321. I agree. But the line must be drawn somewhere. This man knew where the line was. If he didn't, he should have. So, now he must face the consequences of HIS actions.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-22-2003, 10:53 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 11,068
Having sex with a 17 year old girl isn't disgusting. Provided you are between 16 and perhaps, 19 IMHO.

Anything past that in either direction? Yech. They are young adults, and should be able to relate and deal with other young adults.

Having said that, the law is the law is the law. Moral code of a state is reflected in state law. Apparently, in the great state of New Hampshire, there is no moral code. YIPES
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-22-2003, 11:15 AM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
"Having sex with a 17 year old girl isn't disgusting."

I can't speak for experience on that one, but what's disgusting about it to me, is that the tax payers more than likely have to pay for the kid. Which is probably why the age or consent in my state is 18.....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.