Sexual coyness: Difference between revisions
Created page with "'''Sexual coyness''' was described in ''United States v. Amirault'' as a relatively vague and subjective term (any expression or posture that does not show an overt willin..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Sexual coyness''' was described in ''[[United States v. Amirault]]'' as a relatively vague and subjective term (any expression or posture that does not show an overt willingness to engage in sexual activity could be construed as coy)". | '''Sexual coyness''' was described in ''[[United States v. Amirault]]'' as a relatively vague and subjective term (any expression or posture that does not show an overt willingness to engage in sexual activity could be construed as coy)". In ''[[United States v. Dost]]'', the court wrote: | ||
{{cquote|The pictures of the 14-year-old definitely suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity. In some of the photographs the subject has a sexually coy attitude, staring directly at the camera with her head slightly bent to the side. The focal point of the photographs are the girl's well-developed genitalia; indeed, some of the poses border on the acrobatic in order to obtain an unusual perspective on her genitalia. Some of the pictures depict her fully extended in a supine position. Other pictures are of the subject in a sitting position with her legs wide apart. All of these poses would have to be characterized as sexual poses, not the way a child or adult ordinarily sits or reclines. | |||
The visual depiction of the 10-year-old nude girl on the beach is, admittedly, not as graphic as those of the 14-year-old girl. The focal point of the photograph is the girl's genital area due to the unusual positioning of her legs. The girl's expression is not sexually coy, since she is squinting and looking away from the camera. As for the suggestion of a willingness to engage in sexual activity, her open legs do imply such a willingness but nothing else about the child's attitude does. | |||
What strikes the Court most strongly, however, is the unusual pose of this girl. The average 10-year-old child sitting on the beach, especially when unclothed, does not sit with her legs positioned in such a manner. This unusual pose is one that an ordinary child would not normally assume but for adult coaching (as was the case here). This unnatural pose combined with the picture's emphasis on the girl's genitalia leads the Court to conclude that it too constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals."}} | |||
Abramson's ''[[Sexual Rights in America]]'' notes that it could be argued that the photographs of children in Sturges's ''Radiant Identities'' and Mann's ''Immediate Family'' are sexually suggestive or sexually coy. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 03:15, 21 March 2015
Sexual coyness was described in United States v. Amirault as a relatively vague and subjective term (any expression or posture that does not show an overt willingness to engage in sexual activity could be construed as coy)". In United States v. Dost, the court wrote:
| “ | The pictures of the 14-year-old definitely suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity. In some of the photographs the subject has a sexually coy attitude, staring directly at the camera with her head slightly bent to the side. The focal point of the photographs are the girl's well-developed genitalia; indeed, some of the poses border on the acrobatic in order to obtain an unusual perspective on her genitalia. Some of the pictures depict her fully extended in a supine position. Other pictures are of the subject in a sitting position with her legs wide apart. All of these poses would have to be characterized as sexual poses, not the way a child or adult ordinarily sits or reclines.
The visual depiction of the 10-year-old nude girl on the beach is, admittedly, not as graphic as those of the 14-year-old girl. The focal point of the photograph is the girl's genital area due to the unusual positioning of her legs. The girl's expression is not sexually coy, since she is squinting and looking away from the camera. As for the suggestion of a willingness to engage in sexual activity, her open legs do imply such a willingness but nothing else about the child's attitude does. What strikes the Court most strongly, however, is the unusual pose of this girl. The average 10-year-old child sitting on the beach, especially when unclothed, does not sit with her legs positioned in such a manner. This unusual pose is one that an ordinary child would not normally assume but for adult coaching (as was the case here). This unnatural pose combined with the picture's emphasis on the girl's genitalia leads the Court to conclude that it too constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." |
” |
Abramson's Sexual Rights in America notes that it could be argued that the photographs of children in Sturges's Radiant Identities and Mann's Immediate Family are sexually suggestive or sexually coy.
