Why is it illegal?

[PinkFloyd]

From the title, you probably thought this thread was gonna be about weed or Automatic weapons or hell, maybe even privately owned missiles. I don't give a single fuck.

NO, This thread is about distribution of child pornography. More specifically, child porn of YOURSELF. Yes, if Jimmy get a nude and sends it to someone, Jimmy is not a good guy. That's as much a fact as Robbing a bank isn't nice.

Because I'd rather not use myself in this example, Jimmy is gonna make another appearance.

meet Jimmy. Jimmy is 16 and has a girlfriend that is also 16. Because he likes her and wants himself to be on her mind when he can't actually be near her, he sends a naked picture of himself. Turns out that his Girlfriend's parents had her phone when the text was sent and they gave it to the police and Jimmy was charged with child pornography distribution.

Here's the question. Why the FUCK is sending a picture of ME to someone against the law? I obviously understand the risks of my DNA rifle being posted on like 50 different Facebook profiles so who am I hurting by doing that? It would be like me getting charged with auto theft after getting in my own car because I stole the car from myself.

It's almost like my body doesn't even belong to me according to the good ole US government. Where's the victim of me sending naked pictures? Excuse me for thinking that a crime is only a crime when there's a negative impact on someone. if I steal your debit card, that hurts you financially. If I park in front of the fire hydrant by your house, you could die in a fire because the FD couldn't get to the water supply.

Me sending a naked picture hurts no one but myself in some cases and that's something I'm willing to accept. Post your thoughts below.

OH, another thing... I do not represent Jimmy in this example. I'm not in any sort of legal trouble there.. yet.

[ImCoolBeans]

It's ok Rob. You'll be of age soon. Then you can take all the dick pics you want :P

But really, I always thought that was kind of a dumb law that you can get charged for sending a photo of yourself to somebody who even asked for it.

[PinkFloyd]

It's ok Rob. You'll be of age soon. Then you can take all the dick pics you want :P

dammit Mike I'm pissed. Errrr no I'm not. It's not me. It's uhhh yah. Not me at all. :rolleyes:

[Plasma]

What kind of punishment is jimmy looking at? :p

[PinkFloyd]

What kind of punishment is jimmy looking at? :p

Okay, I have to edit that... I myself did not get caught sending that shit. It was actually a female friend that was charged because Snapchat Administrators saw it aaandd yah.

[Plasma]

Okay, I have to edit that... I myself did not get caught sending that shit. It was actually a female friend that was charged because Snapchat Administrators saw it aaandd yah.

Well you sure as hell made it sound like it was you haha

[phuckphace]

yeah I think there needs to be more lenience when it comes to a couple of minors taking photos that they only intend to trade with one another. it's hardly the same thing as the shit that the law was intended to crack down on.

then again I also think a lot of younger kids are really prone to doing impulsive things without considering the consequences, and that includes sharing nude photos with others. once you share something like that you're at the mercy of the other person's judgment - if they turn out to be untrustworthy then you could easily find your photos all over the Internet after a revenge spree following a bad breakup. even if you think you know someone "good enough", it can be surprising how far someone will go when they're acting under severe emotional turmoil. add to that the intrinsic immaturity of teenagers and you have a recipe for a scandal.

so in a way those laws might actually be a good thing in that they make people more cautious about what they share and with whom.

[Horatio Nelson]

That's pretty screwed up if you ask me.

But the again, snapchat is no bueno.

Keep that shit private, you know?

[Gamma Male]

Yeah it's pretty stupid. Like throwing drug addicts in prison. If the addict is only hurting himself, wouldn't that make him the victim? Why would you throw a victim into prison? It's the same fucked up 'Murican logic. Even if it gets out on the internet, wouldn't you rather pedophiles look at photos that were taken willingly by the minors themselves, rather than forced child pornography?

[Karkat]

In the sense that you're saying, it is stupid. That's a little different from what I consider "child pornography"- innocent children being dolled up and positioned for perverts. Like sex trafficking, but not as severe, in my opinion. You're still being violated. You're too young to understand what's going on.

I mean, I think under a certain age, the laws should remain. Like 16-ish. Because you really cannot be responsible enough to make those choices until about then- if not later. (Mind you, I would know...)

But seriously...I still think it's somewhat a good idea, because even adults can have those kinds of situations spiral so hopelessly out of control, and there aren't many laws against the exploitation of those sorts of photos. We need those laws to be there first.

[Harry Smith]

I thought the whole idea of Snapchat was that it was made for sexting, I mean the whole deleted after 10 seconds just shows that's why it was created. But yeah I really don't understand how it's illegal-I assume it's just because the law hasn't really caught up with technology (e.g Skype) and the punishment is pretty heavy as well. I mean I think the age should be 16 for everything-drinking, smoking, voting etc and that should include sending photo's of each other.

[darkangel91]

I think the point is that minors can't be trusted to deal with anything associated with sexuality in a mature way, including things like pictures of one's privates. They don't take sex seriously and treat it with proper respect. Honestly, nowadays most adults don't either. I think the law should be extended to make it illegal for anybody under about twenty-four. Teens tend not to treat sex as an intimate thing that belongs only in a lifelong, committed, faithful relationship between two people who have known one another for years, which is what it is. Nowadays even most adults don't get it either. The law about sexting is just a feeble attempt to maintain a level of morality and decency that culture as it is sadly cannot support, but I applaud the effort.

Prude pride! XD

[Thatcarguy]

right when i read the title i thought of child porn so you're wrong lol

[JamesSC]

Yeah, I never really got the problem with nudity, whether it be in public or irl. If people want to show themselves off, let them!

[Camazotz]

1. Child pornography is any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons under 18 years of age).

2. Distributing child pornography is illegal.

3. Ergo, sending sexually explicit/nude photos of any minor (including oneself) is illegal.

The law exists to protect minors that are pressured or tricked into sending nude photos of themselves. They can't make the law say "it's okay if a minor sends child pornography if it includes themselves." That defeats the purpose. It's not necessarily ideal, but it's the best way to protect minors. According to the law, you're not of a legal age to consent to sending nude pictures. Snapchat reserves the right to report child pornography used through their services (when you click that "I agree" that no one ever reads), as they should because they have to obey the law.

[PinkFloyd]

I think the point is that minors can't be trusted to deal with anything associated with sexuality in a mature way, including things like pictures of one's privates. They don't take sex seriously and treat it with proper respect. Honestly, nowadays most adults don't either. I think the law should be extended to make it illegal for anybody under about twenty-four. Teens tend not to treat sex as an intimate thing that belongs only in a lifelong, committed, faithful relationship between two people who have known one another for years, which is what it is. Nowadays even most adults don't get it either. The law about sexting is just a feeble attempt to maintain a level of morality and decency that culture as it is sadly cannot support, but I applaud the effort.

Prude pride! XD

I don't understand why the law has to be tied to morals. Yes, sex should be taken seriously, but the fucking government should not be in on that. If one person decides to send dick pics to some girl, what's the damage?

[Lovelife090994]

Child pornography is illegal to protect minors.

[ksdnfkfr]

1. Child pornography is any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons under 18 years of age).

2. Distributing child pornography is illegal.

3. Ergo, sending sexually explicit/nude photos of any minor (including oneself) is illegal.

The law exists to protect minors that are pressured or tricked into sending nude photos of themselves. They can't make the law say "it's okay if a minor sends child pornography if it includes themselves." That defeats the purpose. It's not necessarily ideal, but it's the best way to protect minors. According to the law, you're not of a legal age to consent to sending nude pictures. Snapchat reserves the right to report child pornography used through their services (when you click that "I agree" that no one ever reads), as they should because they have to obey the law.

This. if there was a loophole "well okay it's not illegal if..." then that would be taken advantage of by the wrong people. not every kid lives in ideal circumstances.

[PinkFloyd]

Child pornography is illegal to protect minors.

Can you elaborate on that a little? What is some random 16 year old girl being protected from after sending nudes to someone?

I understand the whole pedophilia thing and how some weirdo taking pictures and posting them online is fucked up, but just sending nudes after accepting that they might end up on a bunch of Facebook pages seems fine to me.

[Lovelife090994]

Can you elaborate on that a little? What is some random 16 year old girl being protected from after sending nudes to someone?

I understand the whole pedophilia thing and how some weirdo taking pictures and posting them online is fucked up, but just sending nudes after accepting that they might end up on a bunch of Facebook pages seems fine to me.

People take advantage of children, specially sexually interested children online. The weirdo if over 18 can do whatever he wants except own child porn. The fact that you see child porn as okay is shocking and scary. 16 is still a minor. No minor should be posting nude or inappropriatee photos online or to others. Now when both participants are minors then it is tricky since minors can have sex and it be legal. However even when both are minors it is still child porn since both sent and have inappropriate pictures of someone under 18 or 21 in some countries in their posession. When a face is in the photot then it is unquestionably that person. You see if a teen with a questionable body posts a photo but never reveals the face or the gae then it's another dirty photo. Add the face and age and then it is a big problem. It depends really on the records and photos since a faceless photo can be refuted.

[Lovelife090994]

In the sense that you're saying, it is stupid. That's a little different from what I consider "child pornography"- innocent children being dolled up and positioned for perverts. Like sex trafficking, but not as severe, in my opinion. You're still being violated. You're too young to understand what's going on.

I mean, I think under a certain age, the laws should remain. Like 16-ish. Because you really cannot be responsible enough to make those choices until about then- if not later. (Mind you, I would know...)

But seriously...I still think it's somewhat a good idea, because even adults can have those kinds of situations spiral so hopelessly out of control, and there aren't many laws against the exploitation of those sorts of photos. We need those laws to be there first.

I forgot about how so many adults had their lives ruined from these types of affairs too. I agree for the protection from exploitation part. I hate seeing people prey on others. Pray for me, don't prey on me.

[Star Wolf]

It is indeed a law that can seem stupid in some circumstances, like a bf and gf sending to each other, however, I do think it is a very necessary law. It exists so minors cannot take them and post them online or sell them, which is indeed distribution. It would also leave them vulnerable to predators.

Wait till you're both 18.

[PinkFloyd]

People take advantage of children, specially sexually interested children online. The weirdo if over 18 can do whatever he wants except own child porn. The fact that you see child porn as okay is shocking and scary. 16 is still a minor. No minor should be posting nude or inappropriatee photos online or to others. Now when both participants are minors then it is tricky since minors can have sex and it be legal. However even when both are minors it is still child porn since both sent and have inappropriate pictures of someone under 18 or 21 in some countries in their posession. When a face is in the photot then it is unquestionably that person. You see if a teen with a questionable body posts a photo but never reveals the face or the gae then it's another dirty photo. Add the face and age and then it is a big problem. It depends really on the records and photos since a faceless photo can be refuted.

You definitely make some good points and I think I could retort some good ones as well but I'm really not feeling up to debating. Lots of stuff going on for me right now so yeah. Sorry about cutting this short.

[Lovelife090994]

You definitely make some good points and I think I could retort some good ones as well but I'm really not feeling up to debating. Lots of stuff going on for me right now so yeah. Sorry about cutting this short.

Do what you gotta do and what you feel as right. Sorry about my typos. You have a good night.

[PinkFloyd]

Do what you gotta do and what you feel as right. Sorry about my typos. You have a good night.

Yeah, man you too. Thanks.

[Lisa R]

The law was made to protect the underaged and innocents from predators.
16 is still underage and not yet a adult by law in most states.

[Harry Smith]

People take advantage of children, specially sexually interested children online. The weirdo if over 18 can do whatever he wants except own child porn. The fact that you see child porn as okay is shocking and scary. 16 is still a minor. No minor should be posting nude or inappropriatee photos online or to others. Now when both participants are minors then it is tricky since minors can have sex and it be legal. However even when both are minors it is still child porn since both sent and have inappropriate pictures of someone under 18 or 21 in some countries in their posession. When a face is in the photot then it is unquestionably that person. You see if a teen with a questionable body posts a photo but never reveals the face or the gae then it's another dirty photo. Add the face and age and then it is a big problem. It depends really on the records and photos since a faceless photo can be refuted.

I'll be brutally honest and say that I'm sure that 90% of the people on here would be sexually attracted to a nude photo of a 17 year old because honestly I would. You can't just dismiss it as a shocking and scary because it's the reality nowdays. We know it's still child porn the whole premise of the debate is why it's called that when it's involving two minors and quite clearly doesn't involve children.

[ComfortableInChaos]

I'm not reading all of the other replies... there's so many and they're so long.

I don't understand because in some places, if you're 16+, you can have sex and it's not statutory rape. I don't understand either because they're not going to be able to keep you away from having a camera. Almost all phones today have a camera. I think child pornography is gross, tbh, but if you're like 16+, you should be able to do it. I've done dick pics before of myself, nobody cried about it. There's one problem, I guess: People can sell them to pedos when they need money and then they will have child porn.

One thing I don't fully understand is why we can't buy pornography if we're 16+. My friend and I were in FYE and we were in the anime and there was some yaoi in the back (if you don't know what that is, it's gay anime porn basically) and she started looking through some of it and this woman walked up and asked to see our IDs. What we can do, though, is just go onto Amazon and buy it from there. It's not like we can't get certain things just because you try and card someone. But then I was with another friend who is 17 and we were in Best Buy and I've been watching Girls on HBO and since it was TVMA, I had to have him buy it for me. Who's to say I'm not mature enough to watch it?

[PinkFloyd]

The law was made to protect the underaged and innocents from predators.
16 is still underage and not yet a adult by law in most states.

But what really is the difference between 2 years? What if an 18 year old has the body of like a 14 or 15 year old? is it shocking then? What I really don't get is how a 16 year old sending another 16 year old nudes is bad. If they are aware that it might show up everywhere, then what's the harm?

[Lovelife090994]

I'll be brutally honest and say that I'm sure that 90% of the people on here would be sexually attracted to a nude photo of a 17 year old because honestly I would. You can't just dismiss it as a shocking and scary because it's the reality nowdays. We know it's still child porn the whole premise of the debate is why it's called that when it's involving two minors and quite clearly doesn't involve children.

Even a 17 year old can be exploited. Pornography of a person under 18 with the face in undoubtedly wrong and is the face of an under-age teen.

[Lisa R]

But what really is the difference between 2 years? What if an 18 year old has the body of like a 14 or 15 year old? is it shocking then? What I really don't get is how a 16 year old sending another 16 year old nudes is bad. If they are aware that it might show up everywhere, then what's the harm?

Cause by law it says 18 to be a adult not 16 . Two years is to years. It is what it is
Doesn't matter what we thnk or what we feel is right. The law was made for a reason. If the law to be droped to age 16 then there would be arguments and debates of the age of 14.

[Vlerchan]

I agree with the stances of WisenUpJanetWeiss, Harry Smith, phuckphace, etc.

Cause by law it says 18 to be a adult not 16 . Two years is to years. It is what it is Doesn't matter what we thnk or what we feel is right. The law was made for a reason.
It does matter.

If you can't justify why a certain law is correct or necessary then why bother retaining it?

If the law to be droped to age 16 then there would be arguments and debates of the age of 14.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[backjruton]

I agree with this whole thing (with the OP) because I'm sick of age restrictions on things.

I know it's a little different here, I'm 17 "and a half", I'm going somewhere on holiday next week and we will still have to sneak the drinks so I can have some because the law says you can't until you're 18. The less harmful things, if it's not harming anyone but you it shouldn't be deemed wrong by anyone.

You're doing what you want, you should be able to learn by other consequences than what the law has set there.

I let a friend record me play with my nipples, actually trusted him not to send it to anyone because I got along so well with him and he uploaded it to facebook and youtube. I know it sounds stupid but THAT is what has caused all my emotional problems with trusting people. That is a consequence that the law authorities haven't decided. It also happened with someone else. I once wanked on webcam with a friend. I don't think he recorded me but my best friends did find out because they found him on facebook when I told them about him, and with everything I said. That too is another reason I can't talk in private or trust anyone, because of those 2 people, but I still like the online guy as it was 2 friends in school that actually did the damage by approaching him first.

I really think there shouldn't be any restrictions on anything if it's only you that's being effected by it. It's just that kind of friendship, it really should be allowed. Adults think they know everything but a lot of time they don't - there's no evidence that they had this trouble themselves and they know what's right. They were kids once too, everyone grows unfortunately, and that alone makes the whole thing more stupid. :rolleyes:

[Jean Poutine]

Because there is zero zilch nada easy legal way to both protect teenagers that might be pressured by somebody else to send them nekkids and allow teenagers nearing syphilitic psychosis levels of stupid to do it voluntarily.

The only workable way to really stop teenagers from putting themselves in prison for showing their underdeveloped bodies to other teenagers would be a blanket absolution based on age (something based on consent would be even more fucking infernal). That's absolutely ludicrous, for a very good reason. Whenever there is an exception in legislation, there is a defense based on that same exception, because, well, the exception is a defense.

Teenagers could start selling themselves to pedos and the only thing the "seller" could say to avoid prosecution is "well I thought I was sending them to people my age", because for the protection of minors, we'd have to make it so sending them to adults is still prohibited. There are a lot of ways somebody savvy could skirt the usual requirement that the person has made reasonable attempts to ascertain himself of the age of the person he was sending nudies to. Guess why porn sites all have disclaimers saying "you have to be over 18 to enter"? It's for plausible denial.

And here you have a perfectly legal CP distribution method where there is almost 0 risk to the producer.

I really don't get this. Is it really so important to be able to send people nudies without being busted, especially given how important laws against CP distribution are? Is it worth it gutting the law and making it near-on unworkable just to be able to indulge your whims? Christ, get over yourselves.

[Hyper]

I really don't get this. Is it really so important to be able to send people nudies without being busted, especially given how important laws against CP distribution are? Is it worth it gutting the law and making it near-on unworkable just to be able to indulge your whims? Christ, get over yourselves.

It is of the upmost importance that teenagers be able to send pictures of their baby maker or bat cave to their BFs and GFs their in love with!

I don't mean to be a douche, though I am, but this is absurd... Why would you send nudes to anybody? Ever? At least as a teenager. I don't consider it a sensible thing to do even as an adult. The reasons as to why not to do it are many and many more when you are a teenager.

Stop taking pictures of everything with your smartphones and most of all stop sharing everything you take pictures of.

[Vocabulous]

dammit Mike I'm pissed. Errrr no I'm not. It's not me. It's uhhh yah. Not me at all. :rolleyes:

Yeah he's asking for a friend... Yeah...

[Typhlosion]

I am in favor of lowering the age of child porn to the age of consent.

[Gamma Male]

The age of sexual consent/pornography should be lowered to about 15. I mean honestly, why is it okay to have sex and masturbate to pictures of 18 year olds, but if you're attracted to 15 year olds your some horrible pervert? Unless the person is being abused or harmed in some way, who he decides to have sex with is none of the governments damn business.

Also, being sexually attracted to 14-15 year olds as an adult is perfectly normally, and anyone who denies occasionally feeling attracted to young teenagers is a liar. Pedophilia means being attracted to PRE-pubescent children, not teens.

[radsniper]

i agree with ezra and like what ren said about that the law for the exploitation have to be there first

[Jean Poutine]

The age of sexual consent/pornography should be lowered to about 15. I mean honestly, why is it okay to have sex and masturbate to pictures of 18 year olds, but if you're attracted to 15 year olds your some horrible pervert? Unless the person is being abused or harmed in some way, who he decides to have sex with is none of the governments damn business.

It's not a question of morality. It's simply because a 15 year old can't make that kind of decision. They aren't smart enough, end of. At least at 18, the brain is more developed, but if we really wanted to be consistent with ourselves, the age to everything would be 21 because it's thereabouts the frontal lobe is done developing.

I cringe all the time when I think of stuff I've done when I was 15. It's the age where we all feel like the most exceptional people on the planet and we're never wrong. We've all been through it. Teens really don't need more ways to ruin their future than they already have.

Also, being sexually attracted to 14-15 year olds as an adult is perfectly normally, and anyone who denies occasionally feeling attracted to young teenagers is a liar. Pedophilia means being attracted to PRE-pubescent children, not teens.

That's fucking gross. I stopped being attracted to 14-15 years olds quite a bit ago. Do not presume to know what goes on in the mind of a healthy adult.

Age of consent may be 16 here, but if she's not at least 20, I'm not touching her even with a 40 feet pole. Anything under 17 or so doesn't even get my peepee up. Actually, there is probably nothing that is more of a turn-off to me than a young teen, and that's including coprophilia and naked grandmas. Immaturity just isn't attractive, unless you're screwed in the head.

[darkangel91]

Thank you Jean, finally somebody agrees with me. I wouldn't trust my own SELF to make a good decision on sexual matters, and I tend to think of myself as more mature than most people my age. I just hate the idea of a young teen ruining themselves by doing intimate stuff like that with someone who probably will just dump them eventually anyway. If two fifteen year olds have known each other their whole lives and been in love for quite a while and are closer to each other than to anyone else on earth, then I'd say MAYBE it would be okay to have sex, see each other naked, etc, but sexting is still dumb because it's so easy to hack into smartphones and steal private photos. And by the way, that is a BIG maybe. Most teens aren't mature enough to maintain a healthy long-term relationship, have safe sex, or just generally take serious things seriously.

As for that thing about being attracted to young teens when you're an adult, I find it hard to believe that most people aren't like that - that's about the only place I disagree with Jean here. Immaturity is not attractive, but it can be cute, especially to people with a somewhat warped paternal or maternal instinct. But people aren't attracted to personalities. They're attracted to bodies - they fall in LOVE with personalities. And however lacking a fifteen year old's - or indeed a twelve year old's - personality may be, their bodies can still be pretty hot. Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but that's the way I see it.

In all other counts though, I totally agree with Jean here. Teens have no business, generally, doing anything remotely sexual, unless they're married. And they have no business getting married unless they are basically certain never to get divorced. Love is serious, not a plaything.

<rant complete> :)

[BuryYourFlame]

But what really is the difference between 2 years? What if an 18 year old has the body of like a 14 or 15 year old? is it shocking then? What I really don't get is how a 16 year old sending another 16 year old nudes is bad. If they are aware that it might show up everywhere, then what's the harm?
Because 16 year olds (and people under 18 in general) don't fully understand the implications of their actions, they are not emotionally developed enough. People over 18 often don't understand that either, but after that stage they're adults and they can then do what they wish within the law.

Even a 17 year old can be exploited. Pornography of a person under 18 with the face in undoubtedly wrong and is the face of an under-age teen.
I'm not really sure how the last part entirely ties in, but this pretty much sums up what I think.
17 year olds can be exploited, and as I said before, they aren't adults and they don't fully understand the implications of their actions.

The age of sexual consent/pornography should be lowered to about 15. I mean honestly, why is it okay to have sex and masturbate to pictures of 18 year olds, but if you're attracted to 15 year olds your some horrible pervert? Unless the person is being abused or harmed in some way, who he decides to have sex with is none of the governments damn business.
Also, being sexually attracted to 14-15 year olds as an adult is perfectly normally, and anyone who denies occasionally feeling attracted to young teenagers is a liar. Pedophilia means being attracted to PRE-pubescent children, not teens.
Definitely not...
Teenagers, especially those in the age group you suggested, are no where near developed enough to know the future implications of what they are doing, that is the whole point of the law. There is really a lot of difference between and 18 year old an a 15 year old, mentally if not physically.
Here's the thing, because of their age they might not even realise they are being coerced or manipulated in to doing something. The government has no right to change the sex lives of consenting adults, but 14-15 year olds are not adults.

[Jean Poutine]

As for that thing about being attracted to young teens when you're an adult, I find it hard to believe that most people aren't like that - that's about the only place I disagree with Jean here. Immaturity is not attractive, but it can be cute, especially to people with a somewhat warped paternal or maternal instinct. But people aren't attracted to personalities. They're attracted to bodies - they fall in LOVE with personalities. And however lacking a fifteen year old's - or indeed a twelve year old's - personality may be, their bodies can still be pretty hot. Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but that's the way I see it.

I'm not talking about immaturity as a personality trait (although that still plays a part, as you rightly say, when it's time to fall in love or not), I'm talking about immaturity as a physical trait, ie. underdeveloped. Sure I find teens cute sometimes, but in a totally platonic way, in the same way I would think my own daughter is cute.

I like curves, I like T&A, hell, I like hair. I like a woman to really know what she's doing when we sleep together, I like the suave, mature tone in a woman's voice, I like the natural poise and elegance that comes after puberty's over, I like how defined and feminine a woman's face looks, and no young teenager can provide me this (except the first two, maybe three depending on age), but a woman my age and up certainly can. I'm attracted to the confidence that comes with age and experience, and I'm also attracted to body shapes that remind me of a woman and not a teenage girl, which, granted, is the inverse of today's fashion.

One might argue that today's fashions force women to look younger and younger, and that that's a reflection of what men consider attractive in a woman, but I hate it. I don't like it when women shave themselves down there threadbare, I don't like how a woman has to look either like a doll or 10 years younger than she is to be considered attractive now. I don't like how thinness (sometimes to the extreme) is paramount. Frankly put, I don't think it's healthy, which is why I said I emphasized a healthy state of mind in my post. Yeah, i do think most men are bonkers when it comes to their sexual preferences, but that is what is pushed onto us by the industry, so I suppose it's not all their fault. It's not because the woman is actually 25 but looks like she's 14 that it's okay to sexualize how she looks like, because then we actually sexually objectify what she represents, ie. a 14 years old.

But that focus on youth in today's consideration of what is beauty is a prime example of why sexting should not be allowed. When you start idolizing people who look really young, the next logical step would be idolizing people that are actually young. I don't think it's a slippery slope fallacy, as in many places like Japan that have always culturally emphasised a youthful appearance, it's an ongoing process. For example, google Saaya Irie (no worries, there's no nudes, just swimsuit stuff). She might have big knockers but she still looks 13 (on most photos she actually was, if I remember well), and it's still a turn-off for me. I would not wank to that. The West is late to the party because this is a recent phenomenon for us.

If we were to allow sexting between teenagers, these photos would disseminate, and if done voluntarily might actually result in a legal form of CP as I've pointed out in my other post. And when we've got a society where girls, and not women, are more and more represented as objects of sexual desire, I do think that's a pretty dangerous path to follow.

[PinkFloyd]

Because 16 year olds (and people under 18 in general) don't fully understand the implications of their actions, they are not emotionally developed enough. People over 18 often don't understand that either, but after that stage they're adults and they can then do what they wish within the law.

That's what I'm basing my logic on. I know over 10 eighteen+ people that are all immature on an entirely new level. What also comes to mind is this. What actual harm is being done? Yeah, it's a bad choice, but it's MY bad choice that doesn't have an effect on anyone else's life.

[TheKingIam]

Man made laws can be so dumb sometimes

[darkangel91]

Jean, haven't you heard of neoteny? Humans are one of many species with a trait known as neoteny, the tendency of adults of the species to share many traits with children. Generally in more intelligent species this trait is more pronounced, as in the case of humans. Furthermore, youth is a sign of sexual beauty for the simple reason that it has evolved to be; it is not at all an invention of culture. Young women are seen as more attractive because they are generally more fertile than older women, and thus there is an evolutionary advantage to males who are more attracted to younger females - they end up having more kids! Similarly, there is an evolutionary advantage to females who tend to mate with young men, because young men are not only more fertile - again with the babies - but also stronger and better able to protect their offspring and mate from harm, again increasing their children's chances of survival. Over time, species evolve the tendency to be more sexually attracted to young entities, and thus, entities which look young. It is only to be expected that this evolved tendency will manifest itself in a somewhat exaggerated manner on occasion - hence pedophilia.

You must also remember that throughout most of history, it was considered totally normal for an adult man to have a wife in her early teens, and to have children with her. This was not considered pedophilia - on the contrary, it was encouraged, as throughout most of history women especially have not lived very long, so it was more effective to get a younger mate - and again, they tend to be more fertile earlier on. By about fifteen or sixteen they can safely - well, as safely as contemporary medical science allows - have children, indeed multiple children. This social construct was not seen as perverted, but merely as the way of things. Our idea of pedophilia is really a modern invention, not an innate instinct. That doesn't make it right; but it does basically destroy your claim that it is somehow unnatural. It is quite natural, and much like many natural things, it is rather horrible - at least, from a modern perspective.