:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 241 - 260 of total 565 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

www.climbaddictdesigns.com

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:15pm PT

I think (if underage) they key would be "lascivious exhibition."

hmmm...My picture uploader seems to be not working... I was going to show a screenshot of the dictionary.com listing. Maybe I have been hinted to cease and desist on the male erection images? Or maybe my computer is just acting the way it sometimes does. (and I promise, I won't post any more of those type pictures even if my photo loader does function later on, and apologize for doing the one I did.)

But the definition of Lacisious is

adjective
1.
inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2.
arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3.
indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.

I think that the very last images I saw from IHP would definitely have fallen into that category.

Now I am wondering if I did miss the very last images, because though I thought the girls I saw might have been underage, I didn't think they were prepubescent. At any rate - those images are all gone from the pic section of that ST'er.

Dropline

Mountain climber

Somewhere Up There

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:19pm PT

It's not just lascivious exhibition but lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

www.climbaddictdesigns.com

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:23pm PT

Oh - missed the genital/pubic area wording. Sorry about that.

Dropline

Mountain climber

Somewhere Up There

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:25pm PT

Locker's many past lascivious exhibitions of blue butt plugs have now come to mind and I am deeply deeply offended. Time for me to nuke this thread.

:-)

The Larry

climber

Moab, UT

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:31pm PT

As intriguing as this thread is, I'm out.

I'm gonna go season some sausage.

Dropline

Mountain climber

Somewhere Up There

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:34pm PT

I thought it went without saying that breasts are not genitals. Thanks Toady for seriously making that point.

Locker......OUCH!!!

LuckyPink

climber

the last bivy

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:45pm PT

for anyone questioning, the photos themselves are the proof.
CPS and law enforcement has a long established policy and procedure for identifying and prosecuting child abuse and the use of children in pornography. Even the responses abusers make to being questioned about their activities have been codified, as an extraordinarily high percentage of abusers make the same responses.

The legal definition of "obscene" has been ruled on several times by the Supreme Court in response to child pornography. New York v Ferber 1982 being only one of the more known. It includes the photography of children naked for the purpose of economic gain and widens the definition of child pornography. It addresses the narrow definition of obscenity applied in Miller v California as inadequate to legally address the problem of child pornography.

"Boobgate" (somebody else ingeniously called it that)has been quite the disturbance, very personal, emotional, and an education to some. Might be time to find some balance and some peace.

Perhaps this situation has shown that as low or vile as some ST posters will become, there are many people here willing to speak out against it, and who cannot be intimidated by the noisy, vulgar few. Those people have my appreciation and gratitude.

John M

climber

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:51pm PT

Just a heads up.

I just received an email from someone who should be a bit more up on the law. They didn't want to post here, but they said what dropline posted isn't fully accurate. I didn't totally understand why.

I don't know. Just trying to get more information as I would like to understand this. heading out right now so can't study it.

Edit: lucky pink posted as I was writing.

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

www.climbaddictdesigns.com

Jan 25, 2013 - 06:54pm PT

Well, Lucky Pink - I am glad to know that because I thought, after having Dropline's reiteration on pubic/genital area, "Well, if those girls WERE underage, then that is some god damned loophole there, having to show genitals to be considered child pornography."

Dropline

Mountain climber

Somewhere Up There

Jan 25, 2013 - 07:03pm PT

New York vs Ferber 1982 was about photographs of sexual activity, in this case two films of young boys masturbating. It doesn't address photographs of naked children not engaged in sexual activity.

LuckyPink said:

It includes the photography of children naked for the purpose of economic gain and widens the definition of child pornography.

Where does NY vs Ferber say this? Language directly from the Supreme Court ruling on NY vs Ferber states.

"A New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals."

I'm just learning about this stuff too. But I've been reading the NY Times for 30 years and this stuff comes up from time to time in the paper. Bottom line, as I understand it, is display of breasts, no matter the age or gender, is not illegal.

If I'm wrong I'd love to read about it. I'll go back and edit/add to my posts referencing the court rulings that indicate I am mistaken.

NY vs Ferber is here:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/ferber.html

'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber

like Ontario, Canada, eh?

Jan 25, 2013 - 07:05pm PT

Wow, you Merricans get pretty upset about titties.

Up here in Canada, titties are legal - anywhere, any time, any age, any way.

On the beach, on the street, in the park.

I'm not saying you see titties everywhere, because you don't. {sigh} I'm just saying it ain't illegal to display them.

LuckyPink

climber

the last bivy

Jan 25, 2013 - 07:14pm PT

the free speech argument is often used in defending child abuse cases. It has been well documented and overridden numerous times in all the states and by the Supreme Court several times. Do your own research, dropline.

Dropline

Mountain climber

Somewhere Up There

Jan 25, 2013 - 07:27pm PT

Lucky,

I'm doing my own research as carefully as I can. As near as I can tell, photographs of topless children not engaged in any kind of sexual activity are not defined as pornography in any law or court decision I can find.

Sexual activity of any kind and lascivious display of genitalia or pubic area meet the definition of pornography. That language shows up in a few places.

What I've stated is in line with the information on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. While not an official legal source, it seems likely they would have some very well versed legal eagles help them characterize what child pornography is and is not.

As well, I posted a link to NY Vs Ferber to support my understanding of the decision and the law.

What have you got, Lucky, to support your assertion that photographs of topless underage girls are pornographic or illegal?

I'm all ears. But the law isn't what you say it is, just because you say so.

Dropline

Mountain climber

Somewhere Up There

Jan 25, 2013 - 07:51pm PT

Lucky said:

It includes the photography of children naked for the purpose of economic gain and widens the definition of child pornography

I just went through NY vs Ferber more carefully, searching on "photo" and stopping to read the context each time "photo" was found.

Nowhere does it say, in any way shape or form, that photography of naked children, in and of itself, is pornographic.

But over and over again it describes pornographic behavior as "depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals" in one variant or another.

No matter the age of the subjects in the pics IHP posted, unless they included depictions of sexual activity and/or lascivious exhibition of genitalia or pubic area, which I did not see, they were neither pornographic nor illegal.

zBrown

Ice climber

chingadero de chula vista

Jan 25, 2013 - 08:01pm PT

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/651921/build-respect-for-your-user-name

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jan 25, 2013 - 08:04pm PT

I think some people forget that many people in America are still offended by nudity.
---

This is not an accurate statement or assessment unless you are talking about someone who grew up in a very repressive environment where they learned to be frightened or ashamed of Nature. "Modesty" is always balanced by the shadow side which is profligate and uncensored. Swing too far toward modestly, put too much "virtue" on righteousness and our more primitive instinctual energies will ALWAYS come out sideways - or that we may be sure.

Some people struggle with nudity because they feel fear and shame and so forth and in turn are outraged to have to endure these difficult feelings. When asked why they are "outraged," most people default into supposed moral or ethical arguments, usually with other issues like child porn and professionalism attached in order to bolster their argument.

Those struggling with tasteful nudity are generally terrified to come right out and say what they actually feel when looking at an image or a naked body on the beach, say. It can generate a spectacular medley of strong feelings in some, and is a real issue, as this thread attests. Because this is largely an involuntary and preverbal response, such people should be shown some consideration and understanding, and perhaps be encouraged to look deeper into the issue to gain new perspective. In my experience, all-or-nothing thinking is the root cause of most of these issues - and that's a tricky one to work with.

JL

John M

climber

Jan 25, 2013 - 08:15pm PT

Hey Largo, My family is from the south. There are a whole bunch of church people who are offended by nudity. Their numbers may be going down, but all that I have to do is go to Texas to find bunches of them. I don't even have to go that far, in California you still find bunches of them. I wouldn't be surprised if half the people in Oakhurst Ca, a mostly conservative town would say that public nudity was bad.