| |
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> The problem is, when does something have a victim? For adults this
> quite clear -- only when there is not consent.
I'm not convinced that it's all that clear cut. I have observed
age-peers of mine who are markedly less worldly and make stupid
decisions about their lives. At what magic age is one fully capable of
making decisions such that we can definitively claim that their consent
is enough to make it victimless. But that's kind of a philosophical
ramble. At some point we have to give people control over their lives.
> For non-adults, this gets very blurry very fast.
Do you mean from a legal or an ethical stance?
> Does a photographer have the right to publish a photograph of, say, a
> nudist 10-year-old (who is nude at the time)? On the one hand, it's
Legally, it depends on if he acquired those rights. Ethically...hmmm.
I suppose it is a function of society to some extent. I get the idea
that Italians would react differently than would Southern Baptists
(stereotypical ones, anyway). My personal stance is that if the child
and the parents all agree that it's cool and the publication venue as
well as the subject matter is nonsexual in nature there is certainly no
problem. A labial close-up, OTOH, is questionable.
> utterly victimless. On the other hand, it could well later damage a
> possible political career of said child. Child is in no position to
> judge either way.
Yeah...I don't know. If everyone would relax about such things, then
this would be easier to decide. It shouldn't hurt a future career, and
people shouldn't think a simple nude is indecent.
> I won't go into the rather icky and extremely controversial "studies"
> that "show" sex-with-kids isn't necessarily harmful to the children.
My mother has been verbally battered on several occasions by suggesting
that _maybe_ much of the harm done to children who are victims of non
violent molestation comes from the aftermath and how everyone freaks out
and treats them differently and sends them to counciling and makes them
take the stand and stuff. This is by nature an extremely controversial subject.
Are the studies to which to refer not really studies, but nasty kiddie
freaks trying to justify their sick behavior? Or what?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Exactly. That's why I used "adults" rather than "18+". (...) Ethical. I'm for the moment entirely uninterested in anything legal that may or may not coincide. (...) I probably agree. (...) Indeed. (...) By, or for? (...) Yes. And I would like (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Okay, I'll chime in here--I feel very strongly about this issue, because I'm a member of that "other" group, the ones who never said anything (as children) or went to counseling or to court or anything after instances of sexual abuse. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Yup. I agree. The problem is, when does something have a victim? For adults this quite clear -- only when there is not consent. For non-adults, this gets very blurry very fast. Does a photographer have the right to publish a photograph of, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
