Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

Better wait a couple of Months, Than having to wait 15 years and Buying Brut Soap On A Rope !!!!

sofija wrote:

OMG...when did SG become porn??????

Calling it alt porn is like saying black is really noir.

It is 'nuff said.

Noah wrote:
You put your finger on the question but missed the point several times Kaitlin.

A person's development physically is NOT the sum total of their development as a person.

There is no clean crispy line here that turns people's biologies on and off at a particular point in time. No, you are right, there is not.

Yet, as an adult, I can say with certainty that I can differentiate between a child and an adult. In those instances where all the signals are mixed (say, the person is mentally and emotionally further along than their body, or vice versa) I know well enough to keep the hormones in check. Part of being an adult is knowing when and how to keep your biology in check.

What has bothered me from the very beginning of this thread is that the OP KNOWS it is illegal to shoot a minor in a situation that would (likely) involve nudity. Yet.. appears to play the "I don't know what to do" card. IMO to get alternative ideas on how to approach the matter, or learn what technicalities must be met to make it legal to do the shoot now anyway. THAT just plucks a nerve in me.

YES - I may well have completely mis-characterized the OP's intent. The intent may have been simply to understand how to navigate the situation legally (although I have a hard time believing that anyone would have missed the "she's under 18, why don't I just wait till she's 18?" answer. Just how obvious that answer is makes it really hard for me to believe this is anything but an attempt at finding a way around the "legality" issue.

I also believe that there is a whole other subtext going on here, in that I seem to somehow have given you the impression that I don't believe it's OK to be attracted to someone your age - I think mostly because you are making this point that you and the person you were three years ago are very much physically the same.

1- you are NOT a fully matured developed woman. Mentally or physically. At 19 you may feel as though you've "reached there" wherever the heck "there" is... but this is not the case. I am afraid you will have to take my word for it Kaitlin. No amount of arguing the point will convince you otherwise. (I'm not sure that anyone is ever "really" mentally "mature".. as in.. they quit developing... but that's a whole other huge story....

2- you may not see the differences in your actions, your cognitive self, from where you are today and where you were two years, three years, ago.. but they are there, I am as sure of that as I am sure I have feet. You seem to have missed that part where I went on about describing what a child is beyond their physical appearance - start at "uber hot" in my last post.

I think we've both made ourselves abundantly clear on our particular points of view.

I don't particularly see us clearing the dust here... I'm arguing one nuance of the point, you seem to be arguing for another.

It sounds like you're trying to make the OP out to be some perv. I'm just defending him, because there is nothing more morally wrong about finding a 17 year old attractive than there is about finding an 18 year old attractive. That why I mention my age, and the fact that men in their 50s have hit on me. It's normal for men to be attracted physically to fully physically developed women. That includes most 17 year olds. Doesn't make the guy a pedophile or anything...it just makes him normal.

And how you define "matured" or "developed is just how YOU define those words. Biologically, yes...I am a woman. I could give birth to a child. That makes me a fully developed woman as I define it. I never said I was fully developed mentally. No one is. It has nothing to do with age.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

It sounds like you're trying to make the OP out to be some perv. I'm just defending him, because there is nothing more morally wrong about finding a 17 year old attractive than there is about finding an 18 year old attractive. That why I mention my age, and the fact that men in their 50s have hit on me. It's normal for men to be attracted physically to fully physically developed women. That includes most 17 year olds. Doesn't make the guy a pedophile or anything...it just makes him normal.

And how you define "matured" or "developed is just how YOU define those words. Biologically, yes...I am a woman. I could give birth to a child. That makes me a fully developed woman as I define it. I never said I was fully developed mentally. No one is. It has nothing to do with age.

Kaitlin Lara for the win. Shocker.

Noah wrote:
um....
being able to reproduce does not = someone is fully physically developed.

In fact, people continue to develop well AFTER they've given birth.

Hips are one of the things which keep changing shape, as are breasts, as is the plasticity of the skin... as is the  . . and on and on....

NO. 17 year olds are not fully physically matured Kaitlin. Neither are many 19 year olds - physically.

OK -see, here the issue seems to be your image vs. my perception that there is something going on with the OP that is smelly.

Enough. Thanks.

Okay...I'll rephrase, since you define developed differently than I do.

Let's put aside morals, societal standards, etc. and go with raw physical biological urges. The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Yes it's fun and all...but it's a baby-making act. When a woman hits puberty, and becomes fertile, they develop breasts and hips.  They develop the womanly curves that show a man they are fertile, and make the man attracted to them, because now they're impregnate-able.

At 17, a woman is almost ALWAYS able to reproduce. The ability to reproduce is what draws a man in on a primal level.

sofija wrote:

OMG...when did SG become porn??????

We can discuss the merits of what is artistic nudity vs. porn till the end of time... but that doesn't change the fact that 95+% of the population considers any 18+ magazine as well as pay websites featuring nude woman... as porn. While an art student may have a text book with images more explicit in nature than an issue of Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler... only a small percentage of the poppulation would consider that pornography... but nearly all would consider the mags and websites to be... that's just the way it is.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Okay...I'll rephrase, since you define developed differently than I do.

Let's put aside morals, societal standards, etc. and go with raw physical biological urges. The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Yes it's fun and all...but it's a baby-making act. When a woman hits puberty, and becomes fertile, they develop breasts and hips.  They develop the womanly curves that show a man they are fertile, and make the man attracted to them, because now they're impregnate-able.

At 17, a woman is almost ALWAYS able to reproduce. The ability to reproduce is what draws a man in on a primal level.

yes. on a very basic animal level (and I firmly believe we are fools if we loose sight that we are first and foremost animals)

BUT what makes us Human beings, as opposed to dogs, or rabbits, or other kinds of livestock which procreate with any animal of the species that is ready to be fecundated - is that we use our higher mental functions to determine which of our lower impulses we will act on.

True - a man should find a female with all the right physical attributes attractive -
and that same man should also use his other senses to locate that woman's position with relation to overall maturity.  If the female is physically developed but not mentally or emotionally developed, a higher order of human behavior should kick in and dictate "don't fuck this one yet! she's not ALL ripe"  A WOMAN, who is mentally and emotionally developed is much better apt to take full care of a newborn - a young woman just hitting, or even in late stages of puberty just is not as capable of doing the same.

You keep trying to shove down my throat that "hitting puberty" makes someone a woman. It does not. For one thing - boobs and ass and hips don't just drop out of the sky one day. And even if they did, the young female wouldn't be emotionally equipped to deal with


--------------------------------  OK..
sorry. But I'm done.

You will get it when you are like.. 27. and THEN you will look back at 17 year olds and 99.9 out of 100 will look like dorky pimple faced kids to you.. and that .01% that doesn't will blow their cover of being "hot and developed" when he comes over and opens his mouth ... all you'll need to do is hear the content of the conversation and any question as to him being a KID will be gone from your mind.

Sorry to pull the age card on you Kaitlin, but I really don't feel like you are open to understanding the point I'm making here. I think I understand why you might not see things my way - but I just don't have the energy to hang here and just keep beating my head against the keyboard.

No adult should get all turned on by a CHILD.
Like I said - I work on a University Campus... I see 15 THOUSAND freshmen every year.. and every year they are more and more like children to me. Intelligent, savvy, trendy, complex, misunderstood, etc. etc. ad nauseum. But they are children. Most of them don't have full hips till they are in their twenties, and the occasional one that does at 18 still looks like a kid to me just by noting her skin texture (kids tend to have more form fitting, "elastic" skin than adults). If all the physical signs fail to tell me that I'm looking at a kid, the moment they open their mouths I know exactly what I'm dealing with.

Don't get me wrong - thousands of freshmen ARE attractive. But there is NO WAY I'd ever touch one with YOUR dick, m'dear. It just feels weird and icky down in the pit of my stomach. Why? Cause they are kids to me Kaitlin.
That's all. They are kids. I would no more want to screw a kid than I'd want to bag a senior citizen. OK?

Define it how you may - To a fully grown adult, wanting to be turned on (and worse - wishing to get off "to") a kid is simply revolting.

Noah wrote:
yes. on a very basic animal level (and I firmly believe we are fools if we loose sight that we are first and foremost animals)

BUT what makes us Human beings, as opposed to dogs, or rabbits, or other kinds of livestock which procreate with any animal of the species that is ready to be fecundated - is that we use our higher mental functions to determine which of our lower impulses we will act on.

True - a man should find a female with all the right physical attributes attractive -
and that same man should also use his other senses to locate that woman's position with relation to overall maturity.  If the female is physically developed but not mentally or emotionally developed, a higher order of human behavior should kick in and dictate "don't fuck this one yet! she's not ALL ripe"  A WOMAN, who is mentally and emotionally developed is much better apt to take full care of a newborn - a young woman just hitting, or even in late stages of puberty just is not as capable of doing the same.

You keep trying to shove down my throat that "hitting puberty" makes someone a woman. It does not. For one thing - boobs and ass and hips don't just drop out of the sky one day. And even if they did, the young female wouldn't be emotionally equipped to deal with


--------------------------------  OK..
sorry. But I'm done.

You will get it when you are like.. 27. and THEN you will look back at 17 year olds and 99.9 out of 100 will look like dorky pimple faced kids to you.. and that .01% that doesn't will blow their cover of being "hot and developed" when he comes over and opens his mouth ... all you'll need to do is hear the content of the conversation and any question as to him being a KID will be gone from your mind.

Sorry to pull the age card on you Kaitlin, but I really don't feel like you are open to understanding the point I'm making here. I think I understand why you might not see things my way - but I just don't have the energy to hang here and just keep beating my head against the keyboard.

No adult should get all turned on by a CHILD.
Like I said - I work on a University Campus... I see 15 THOUSAND freshmen every year.. and every year they are more and more like children to me. Intelligent, savvy, trendy, complex, misunderstood, etc. etc. ad nauseum. But they are children. Most of them don't have full hips till they are in their twenties, and the occasional one that does at 18 still looks like a kid to me just by noting her skin texture (kids tend to have more form fitting, "elastic" skin than adults). If all the physical signs fail to tell me that I'm looking at a kid, the moment they open their mouths I know exactly what I'm dealing with.

Don't get me wrong - thousands of freshmen ARE attractive. But there is NO WAY I'd ever touch one with YOUR dick, m'dear. It just feels weird and icky down in the pit of my stomach. Why? Cause they are kids to me Kaitlin.
That's all. They are kids. I would no more want to screw a kid than I'd want to bag a senior citizen. OK?

Define it how you may - To a fully grown adult, wanting to be turned on (and worse - wishing to get off "to") a kid is simply revolting.

I'm not open to the point you're making because you're arguing against something I'm not saying. I never said all 17 year olds are hot. I'm saying that a hot 17 year old is hot regardless of whether or not they are 17, and that they often possess all the PHYSICAL attributes that are attractive to the opposite sex. I'm not even talking about mentally or emotionally, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I never once said that 17 year olds are mentally or emotionally developed.

Pull the age card all you want. My age doesn't make my points invalid any more than your age makes your arguing against things I didn't say valid.

Zombified Studios wrote:
My question is this, and please forgive me if this is an ignorant question, why is SG so maligned.  There was alot of hostility in the beginning of this thread.

The search feature is your friend. Or just Google.

They exploit the models with oppressive contracts and constantly-changing rules and requirements, try to spin their porn site as some sort of alt-feminist freedom march, and fail to pay photographers a reasonable rate for their work.

Add to that, their current treatment of Lithium Picnic and Apnea, which put them on my permanent black-list. I'll work with SG models (I shot with AnneLys in Paris last month), but not on SG sets.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
I'm saying that a hot 17 year old is hot regardless of whether or not they are 17,

To an 19 y.o. maybe. To an adult - NO.
And here is the other part of the disconnect between us talking - "hot" does not = "I will fuck you".  I too said there are lots of freshmen (17, 18, 19, 20 y.o.'s) who are "hot" or "attractive"... they will never be the object of my sexual gratification. Period.
I'm an adult, they are children.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
and that they often possess all the PHYSICAL attributes that are attractive to the opposite sex. I'm not even talking about mentally or emotionally, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I never once said that 17 year olds are mentally or emotionally developed.

Because, as I've pointed out above, being sexually engaged by someone is more than finding a spike in your hormones. You may or may not have had this experience - but I know I HAVE - so let me tell you about it: I am hardly ever around really young kids. Recently I was, and lo and behold, out of the BLUE I felt protective instincts start to pop up all over the place. Now, I'm 31. No kids. No plans for kids. No prior history with kids. No siblings even! What I'm pointing to is that at some point in a person's development, they begin to have generalized feelings of protectiveness toward those they perceive as "kids".. children.

THAT is one of the major disconnects between you and I. You see people at 17 as your peers, or recent peers. I see 17 year olds, 18, 19, and on up to early 20 somethings as somewhere between children and adults. Somewhere there is this instinctive "protect this thing" feeling that pops up should something endanger a "child" or a "kid". That same instinct is what categorically KILLS the "that's taggable" feeling from me toward anyone that still smacks of "kid" to me.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Pull the age card all you want. My age doesn't make my points invalid any more than your age makes your arguing against things I didn't say valid.

This is very true. Age does not decide truth. But age does alter the way the terrain we are speaking of is viewed. To me, a 17 year old is a kid, maybe not really a child anymore, but definitely not an adult. To you, they are a peer.  Of course we will see things from a different perspective.

Back to the OP - what bothers me is the sentiment that there is this adult who appears to be gung-ho about shooting someone who's underage, to such an extent that waiting a few months to do the shoot seems like too much to ask.

WHAT? I ask (and asked of the OP much earlier), would drive a full grown man to risk flaunting the law, and further - risk the (not-to-be-taken-lightly) punishment our culture doles out to those it deems sexual deviants?

The only answer that comes to my mind is one I am not willing to post on this thread.

That is what the conversation is about.
You want to split hairs about who can hit on who, or what ages are appropriate for sex with what ages?.. that's cool- just not my bag here and now.

There are differences between the way we do, can, and ARE seeing the world Kaitlin, of course those differences will distort what each of us "reads" from each other's words. By saying - "you'll get it latter" I'm not trying to say - "you aren't capable" but only that things will appear different in a few years, and this hair splitting will be superfluous. So, no, me saying I'm older does not make me right and you wrong. Me saying I'm older tends to mean I've experiences a few things you may not have yet (like a ten year difference between yourself and those who are just "now" becoming physically fertile... just for starters...) 

Again - I want to make the fact that I'm trying my best NOT to be condescending come though... OK? .... cause I hated that shit violently when I was your age... and would fight on blindly just because I hated it so. It may be hard to fathom, but life still has a SHIT LOAD of things to show you dear... it's a long fun ride. Just don't stop and shag the kids and everything's gonna be alright ;P (totally fakin kiddin!)

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
I also never stated that there was any nudity, only that it was a SG "styled" shoot. Styled does NOT imply, not state porn or nudity.

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

Don't you have to be 18 to even JOIN to SG?

Noah wrote:

To an 19 y.o. maybe. To an adult - NO.
And here is the other part of the disconnect between us talking - "hot" does not = "I will fuck you".  I too said there are lots of freshmen (17, 18, 19, 20 y.o.'s) who are "hot" or "attractive"... they will never be the object of my sexual gratification. Period.
I'm an adult, they are children.


Because, as I've pointed out above, being sexually engaged by someone is more than finding a spike in your hormones. You may or may not have had this experience - but I know I HAVE - so let me tell you about it: I am hardly ever around really young kids. Recently I was, and lo and behold, out of the BLUE I felt protective instincts start to pop up all over the place. Now, I'm 31. No kids. No plans for kids. No prior history with kids. No siblings even! What I'm pointing to is that at some point in a person's development, they begin to have generalized feelings of protectiveness toward those they perceive as "kids".. children.

THAT is one of the major disconnects between you and I. You see people at 17 as your peers, or recent peers. I see 17 year olds, 18, 19, and on up to early 20 somethings as somewhere between children and adults. Somewhere there is this instinctive "protect this thing" feeling that pops up should something endanger a "child" or a "kid". That same instinct is what categorically KILLS the "that's taggable" feeling from me toward anyone that still smacks of "kid" to me.


This is very true. Age does not decide truth. But age does alter the way the terrain we are speaking of is viewed. To me, a 17 year old is a kid, maybe not really a child anymore, but definitely not an adult. To you, they are a peer.  Of course we will see things from a different perspective.

Back to the OP - what bothers me is the sentiment that there is this adult who appears to be gung-ho about shooting someone who's underage, to such an extent that waiting a few months to do the shoot seems like too much to ask.

WHAT? I ask (and asked of the OP much earlier), would drive a full grown man to risk flaunting the law, and further - risk the (not-to-be-taken-lightly) punishment our culture doles out to those it deems sexual deviants?

The only answer that comes to my mind is one I am not willing to post on this thread.

That is what the conversation is about.
You want to split hairs about who can hit on who, or what ages are appropriate for sex with what ages?.. that's cool- just not my bag here and now.

There are differences between the way we do, can, and ARE seeing the world Kaitlin, of course those differences will distort what each of us "reads" from each other's words. By saying - "you'll get it latter" I'm not trying to say - "you aren't capable" but only that things will appear different in a few years, and this hair splitting will be superfluous. So, no, me saying I'm older does not make me right and you wrong. Me saying I'm older tends to mean I've experiences a few things you may not have yet (like a ten year difference between yourself and those who are just "now" becoming physically fertile... just for starters...) 

Again - I want to make the fact that I'm trying my best NOT to be condescending come though... OK? .... cause I hated that shit violently when I was your age... and would fight on blindly just because I hated it so. It may be hard to fathom, but life still has a SHIT LOAD of things to show you dear... it's a long fun ride. Just don't stop and shag the kids and everything's gonna be alright ;P (totally fakin kiddin!)

I'm sorry...but I just can't bother reading all this. Within the first couple paragraphs you're saying things that show you don't get my point at all. The OP never said a single word about fucking anyone. This entire time I've been talking solely about the attractiveness of underage models. HOW THEY LOOK. That's all that matters for a photo anyway. Why in the world does it appear that the crux of your argument is about why we shouldn't have SEX with underage models? That's not MY point.

By the way...you keep arguing that even a 19 year old is not fully physically, mentally, or emotionally developed. It sounds to me as if your definition of developed is something to the effect of "done growing". If that's the case, no one is fully developed, because our bodies and minds don't stop changing until we're in the cold hard earth (or an urn on someone's mantle...whatever). If that's your definition, and we shouldn't have sex with people who are not developed (I mean, that is what statutory rape laws are in effect protecting against) then shouldn't we not have sex with ANYONE? When you define "developed" so loosely, the 17/18 year old line becomes irrelevant. By your logic, people shouldn't be fucking 18 year olds or even 25 year olds either (since I won't understand til I'm 27 or so...will I be "developed" then).

Noah wrote:
To an 19 y.o. maybe. To an adult - NO.
And here is the other part of the disconnect between us talking - "hot" does not = "I will fuck you".  I too said there are lots of freshmen (17, 18, 19, 20 y.o.'s) who are "hot" or "attractive"... they will never be the object of my sexual gratification.

First of all, and I hope he won't mind me mentioning his name because he's said this in the forums before so it's not like it's a secret, but ask Marcus Ranum if he thinks 17 year olds can be hot. He'll make the argument a lot better than me...since he's pretty much a genius...and he's 44. I've seen Marcus argue much of the same stuff I'm arguing, so no...this is not solely an issue of me not getting it because I'm young. It's an issue of you not getting it because you're a different person than me. I accept that...why can't you?

And I never said anything about making 17 year olds the object of sexual gratification...so why do you feel the need to defend yourself against that? Guilty conscience?

Either way...this issue is debatable...otherwise we wouldn't be able to have a debate right now. It's a matter of how people view the world. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how old I am or how old you are. Like I said...I've seen people older than you argue on my side. You agreed earlier with my main point. Now you're picking at little things I've said...or rather...little things I DIDN'T say, and that's just not what a debate is about. That's what an argument is about. I'm not looking for an argument. I was looking for a debate...so we should probably end this conversation now. I think it's getting too personal. That was never my intention. I hope you harbor no ill feelings. I was just engaging my brain in some calisthenics. It was nothing personal on my end.

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
Thanks to Kaitlin for your position and for showing a maturity level far beyond a woman of 19..!

Well thanks I just don't like to see anyone unfairly accused of anything. I didn't think there was anything evil or perverse about your question. IMHO, the perversion came from the minds of those who twisted it into something perverse.

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

You're going to do it anyway, aren't you.

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

tell them when they're 18 then come back

Teresasda1 wrote:
Don't want to be involved, but I'm sorry but there are 9 year old little girls who have periods and can reproduce... Some even have. Maybe that will help the disagreement?

Or we could mention the fact that in the middle ages, you were married and pumping out babies by 13 or 14 since you'd most likely be dead by 35. 18 is just the number we chose to draw the line at. It's not like there's some grand change at 18...and I'd remember that more clearly than Noah, since I was just there less than 2 years ago

Natas Vandele wrote:

You're going to do it anyway, aren't you.

He just said he's going to wait. Man...everyone hates this poor guy today...lol

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

I, frankly, can't imagine producing a good set of slutty nudie pics (IE SG shots) with a young woman's mother or father present. We all know shooting underaged girls without guardians present is NOT HAPPENING.... specially when they intend to get naked. Find a clue pal.

Jeffrey McAlister wrote:
I, frankly, can't imagine producing a good set of slutty nudie pics (IE SG shots) with a young woman's mother or father present. We all know shooting underaged girls without guardians present is NOT HAPPENING.... specially when they intend to get naked. Find a clue pal.

No one said she would be getting naked. No one said it was an SG shoot...just SG STYLE. That doesn't mean he's going to shoot anything inappropriate of her. SG style could just mean that it will be sexy shots of an alternative looking girl. Why are we all jumping all over this guy's ass with our ASSUMPTIONS? People are attacking him for stuff he never said.

Manny Desalamanca wrote:
Forgot,
Say Hi To Bubba while you enjoy your New Home .......

Bubba got out last month..

Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers

You've talked to someone under 18?  Be very careful.  You're probably already under surveillance by CBS and being setup by the Justice Department for a sting (the only way they work anymore).  If I were you, I'd probably throw myself in front of a bus just to deny them the satisfaction of an arrest.

Dave Krueger wrote:

You've talked to someone under 18?  Be very careful.  You're probably already under surveillance by CBS and being setup by the Justice Department for a sting (the only way they work anymore).  If I were you, I'd probably throw myself in front of a bus just to deny them the satisfaction of an arrest.

Evan Shorrock wrote:

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
It sounds like you're trying to make the OP out to be some perv. I'm just defending him, because there is nothing more morally wrong about finding a 17 year old attractive than there is about finding an 18 year old attractive. That why I mention my age, and the fact that men in their 50s have hit on me. It's normal for men to be attracted physically to fully physically developed women. That includes most 17 year olds. Doesn't make the guy a pedophile or anything...it just makes him normal.

And how you define "matured" or "developed is just how YOU define those words. Biologically, yes...I am a woman. I could give birth to a child. That makes me a fully developed woman as I define it. I never said I was fully developed mentally. No one is. It has nothing to do with age.

Hi Folks,

As a 29 year old, female photographer...I have read this thread with both 'hmmm, there's a thought' and 'Geezus are we still in the dark ages?' responses. I won't restate what has already been said here...but as a woman and soon to be mother...Kaitlin speaks from a very insightful position. America is known as both sexually repressed and sexually controlling. We hold ideas and beliefs here that are little more that joke material in other civilized and developed cultures. I always found it amusing that here in American at the tender age of '18' you can...

1. Shed blood and die for your country
2. Get an abortion
3. Legally leave home and become anything you want (Make a million bucks or die on the street, a pauper)
4. Live off the welfare of your state
5. Pay most of what you earn, working your ass off, to the Gov.

BUT...at 17 you are only a child. Sure, maturity continues all throughout life...but just because you are more mature at 27 than you are at 17...doesn't make you a child at 17. THATS an American idea. If you think other wise...go spend a year in Europe, Germany, Italy, Prague, France...etc.

Just my thoughts.
Michele

Anjel BRITT wrote:
Noah made perfect sense

I must have missed the bit where he accused anyone here of being a  peodophile ... merely saying that a young person in their teens who is full of their own sexual power and wants to be seen as an adult is still NOT an adult - and does not appear one to another older person - only to a person near their own age.

I also am happy to say as far as NO ONE IS MENTALLY MATURE that I know many great people who are.

Of course what he says makes sense. I never said it didn't. What he said didn't have anything to do with what I was saying though. We were just having a debate. No one's right or wrong...we just have different opinions on the issue.

And sorry...but adult is a VERY vague term. Maybe you can say that a teenager doesn't appear to be a PEER to an older person...but to say they don't appear as an ADULT is just far too generalized. That is certainly not something you can say about all people. A teenager is legally an adult when they turn 18. Apparently the people who make the rules think teenagers (beyond the age of 18) are adults.