By DemocracyRules
I saw this ad on an online New York newspaper. I have nothing specific against American Apparel or the way they advertise things. Their ads seem typical. I thought she looks 14 because her hands seem very childlike. I don’t know her real age.
I’m a man, I have no difficulty noticing attractive women. I do it all the time without any effort at all. However if a sexy model looks 14, it bothers me. It seems illogical. Given that pedophilia is bad, then girls under a certain age should not be publicly displayed in sexually arousing ways. It’s hard to stop pedophilia if we encourage it at the same time.
Gina Cobb readers said she should look at least 19 for this ad. Readers estimated she looked 18, but about half thought she was younger than that. They thought it was “somewhat likely” that this ad would arouse a pedophile (On a scale of 1 to 10, the average was 5.6).
The most surprising part of this mini-study was researching “the age of consent”. Each US state has their own, varying from about 14 to 18 with differences in what they mean by it. Canada sets it federally, and we just raised it to 16 or 18 (depending...). Since 1890 it had been 14. I won’t philosophize much on the morality because I’m not a particularly good moral philosopher and my opinions are pretty average. However, to me the age should be 18 for being openly sexual. What kids do among themselves is a different and very complicated matter.
Won’t it be easier to stop pedophilia if we’re really clear about when and where to draw the line? Comments?
Here are all posts related to the "Raglan Pullover Study":
What Minimum Age Should She Look?
Kristen wrote:
I'm the model in this ad, I'm 22 now but the picture was taken when I was 21. I just happen to look young but to say that I look 14 or even 16 is ridiculous. Thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From DemocracyRules -- Dear Kristen.
Thank you for your comment! I wrote a reply at,
Follow-up On The Raglan Pullover Study
Posted by: kristen | March 19, 2009 at 10:35 PM