This message was self-deleted by its author

[Nine]

291. Now I know you are just playing with us.

First, it wasn't just seeing a naked woman, as you have been informed repeatedly.
Second, the youngest minor was 14.

As the law is written, yes there is a cutoff age, just as with many, many laws. There is an age when you can drink alcohol, an age when a young person can consent to sexual relations, an age when you can vote, an age where a crime you commit is handled by the regular criminal justice system instead of juvenile justice. With every age cutoff, there exists a day where you fall into one category and the next day you fall into a different category. We have numerical cutoffs other than age. If you steal this amount, it's a misdemeanor, but a penny more and it's grand larceny. You can drive with your blood alcohol one level, but slightly over that and you are considered "impaired." Is this really the first time you've ever thought about that concept? We do have human beings to help fine tune the interpretation and enforcement of these laws, and I think most human beings would not have a problem saying what happened in this case fit the definition of endangering the mental well-being of at least some of those minors. Your insistence on talking about "a naked woman" is just a distraction.