Quote:
|
Kellogg said that at 16, most teens are more vulnerable to being sexually exploited because they are becoming more familiar with sex and may not think what they are doing is wrong.
|
First off to this let me say BULLSHIT. At 16 you are fully aware of right and wrong. But here is a better question. Is nudity wrong? I suppose thats the real question here. I mean consider the fact that we never saw nudity as wrong untill around 1500 years ago or so (for the most part that is.) and there for awhile they saw ALL nudity as wrong. Even so much as they wouldn't bathe because it required you to be nude. And what is nudity? Would it have been wrong to take a picture of a 16 year old girl topless? What about all those cultures where they are just like men and are always topless? When its on the discovery channel it is not art but it is legal. I think they core problem here is really just people being afraid of their own sexuality. Stating that the only way that a person would be willing to pose nude is if they had a troubled past. Or maybe they were trying to say that they only way anyone 16 or younger who would pose nude had a troubled past. If you were 17 or older it could just be normal. There is also the fact that in oklahoma 16 IS the legal age of consent. Utah used to be 14(and is currently 16 I believe). So what if he took these pictures in bricktown (Oklahoma city.) or in front of the great salt lake? THEN it would be art? I personally don't care if it is art or pornagraphy. I think that mentally a 16 year old boy CAN make that choice and legally should be able to. Also to the people asking about taking pictures of their own children in the bath or what not. Just watch where you get those devolped. Because yes, as stupid as it sounds, people DO get arrested for those.