Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcan
Also, not a good argument. I'm too young to be president (by law), but I'm certainly not too young to play the president on TV. I believe the age at which any individual is ready to have a mature and intimate, sexual relationships is drastically different for everyone. Teaching kids that there is some magic "maturity" that happens when they reach 18 is probably what's causing most people to be so messed up about sex in the first place.
When you're 14, 15, 16 you want it... But it's BAD.
When you're 18, suddenly it's OK, but you really don't feel any different. Your tastes have changed, and you've experienced some things that have made you grow up a bit. But when you're 22, you'll look back at your 18 year old self and think you were immature as hell. Then, when you're 30, you'll back and think you were just a stupid 22 year old... No matter how old you get, you'll always think "if I only knew then..."
Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The topic is:
Is underage nudity automatically wrong? Or does the intent behind the nudity make it wrong?
I'm obviously in the "intent" camp.
|
You are completely wandering off in left field here. I don't even know where you're going. None of that has anything to do with any of this. This girl is 12 years old. Whether or not you could pass as the president has nothing to do with whether a 12 year old girl is sexually mature or not. It's not even in the same ballpark. It's like saying eating hot dogs is as serious as getting stabbed in the face.
I would agree that everybody matures at a different rate, and a set age isn't going to work for everybody. But I'm fairly confident 12 isn't it. Maybe it is 15 or 16. But not 12. And that's what this girl is. She's not even fully grown yet. You know she's not mature enough to understand a mature sexual relationship, and what's good and what's bad.