I just stumbled on this NY Times webpage that features an incredible NY Times Magazine photo in the top left corner with a gorgeous, shirtless, nicely-muscled, triumphant post-game football player.
Since then I've discovered he's a former Don Bosco Prep player who was interviewed in a 11/10/02 article, found here.
Does anyone happen to have a link to a bigger version of the photo, or have a copy of it they could scan and email to me? Or if you live in NYC, I'll gladly buy someone a drink or two to take a look at it!
Thanks...
Full Version: Is it "immoral" to admire a young athlete?
how nice, someone drooling over HS football players... might i suggest graduating to the college level... or wait till they are 18 at least....
College players are my favorite usually, but this photo caught my eye for obvious reasons. And guys turn 18 during their senior year, so he's legal! There's not even much of an age difference between us, either.
QUOTE
frerx:
College players are my favorite usually, but this photo caught my eye for obvious reasons. And guys turn 18 during their senior year, so he's legal! There's not even much of an age difference between us, either.
Agreed ... and based on the photo, this young man is no child. College players are my favorite usually, but this photo caught my eye for obvious reasons. And guys turn 18 during their senior year, so he's legal! There's not even much of an age difference between us, either.
Would I date him? No ... I'm old enough to be his dad, and odds are 90%+ that he's straight anway. Can I admire his handsome physique from a safe distance? I sure hope so!
PhillyFan, who appointed you as our morals police? We can't know precisely what the guy's age is, but it's obvious even in the small pic that he's no child. Are you saying that it's a crime or a sin or sickness even to LOOK at sexy guy who MIGHT be under 18? (It's worth noting that here in S.C., the age of consent is 16. In most other countries it is 16 or even 14.) Though I have no desire to mess around with anyone who is underage, I refuse to surrender to the moral hysteria that has been generated by the Christian conservatives about teenage sexuality. Please spare me the stern lecture.
QUOTE
BillyBones:
PhillyFan... Please spare me the stern lecture.
O.M.G. LOL LOL LOL !!!PhillyFan... Please spare me the stern lecture.
Stern lecture??? From PhillyFan???
C'mon, I love PhillyFan, he's one of the most light-hearted guys we have here! That was hardly a stern lecture, no matter who it came from.
Oh, and that guy -- he's a bit young, don't ya think? Okay, some of us here are older than others. 38 here. Maybe if you're in your twenties, it's okay.
QUOTE
BillyBones:
PhillyFan, who appointed you as our morals police? We can't know precisely what the guy's age is, but it's obvious even in the small pic that he's no child. Are you saying that it's a crime or a sin or sickness even to LOOK at sexy guy who MIGHT be under 18? (It's worth noting that here in S.C., the age of consent is 16. In most other countries it is 16 or even 14.) Though I have no desire to mess around with anyone who is underage, I refuse to surrender to the moral hysteria that has been generated by the Christian conservatives about teenage sexuality. Please spare me the stern lecture.
Billy you go sit in the corner.... and dont talk back..... 18 may be the consent age.... but it's called kiddie porn kids. If there is a question of age, do you post it? LOL i have a friend in NC, and he's told me what goes on in SC... PhillyFan, who appointed you as our morals police? We can't know precisely what the guy's age is, but it's obvious even in the small pic that he's no child. Are you saying that it's a crime or a sin or sickness even to LOOK at sexy guy who MIGHT be under 18? (It's worth noting that here in S.C., the age of consent is 16. In most other countries it is 16 or even 14.) Though I have no desire to mess around with anyone who is underage, I refuse to surrender to the moral hysteria that has been generated by the Christian conservatives about teenage sexuality. Please spare me the stern lecture.
Hey BillyBones: Sounds like your trying to justify your arousal from that pic!!! LOL Phillyfan is totally kewl, and one of the nicest guys on here. I dont think he was condemning anyone from what he said, just simply pointing out that he appears to be under 18 (hence a HIGH SCHOOL player) and that means "out of bounds". Sorry, I dont care how good someone looks, it is NEVER worth going to jail over, and that has NOTHING to do with Christian Conservatives trying to legislate our morality.
David
David
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
it's called kiddie porn
it's called kiddie porn
QUOTE
exfballplayer:
it is NEVER worth going to jail over
You guys are getting more than a little overheated. It's a freakin' picture in the New York Times, fer cryin' out loud. Settle down.it is NEVER worth going to jail over
[ April 27, 2003, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
18 may be the consent age.... but it's called kiddie porn kids. If there is a question of age, do you post it?
The NY Times pic? Since he wasn't naked, absolutely.
18 may be the consent age.... but it's called kiddie porn kids. If there is a question of age, do you post it?
"Justify arousal"?????
This crazy PC anti-sex feminazi crap almost makes me not wanna be gay. I had hoped a sports site wouldn't be filled with the kind of ppl like Dist202, but this is the second time I've seen this.
Just how old does someone have to be to consider that guy a "kiddie"? 
Take your youth-hating, sex-hating, human-hating hysteria and stuff it.
He is totally hot from what I can tell -- and I'll look at whoever I damn well please. AND I'll say the same to your face 20 years from now.
This crazy PC anti-sex feminazi crap almost makes me not wanna be gay. I had hoped a sports site wouldn't be filled with the kind of ppl like Dist202, but this is the second time I've seen this.
Just how old does someone have to be to consider that guy a "kiddie"? Take your youth-hating, sex-hating, human-hating hysteria and stuff it.
He is totally hot from what I can tell -- and I'll look at whoever I damn well please. AND I'll say the same to your face 20 years from now.
Lets do some age math here, HS football player, and didnt that article say that he wanted to attend Rutgers or something... I'll assume he's not a big dumb jock and didnt flunk out a bunch of classes.... Most kids in HS turn 18 their senior year after DECEMBER... football is played in the Fall, sounds like 17 to me.
If I were the PC police (that is the job of other people here).... i woulda called you a kiddie porn freak, not just saying this might not be right to post.
Isnt that pic just encouraging the "Hot HS jock" thread to start? heh heh... The kid is hot, no one denies that, i'm just asking is it proper to post pictures of someone who is probably 17 stating how hot you think they are?
If I were the PC police (that is the job of other people here).... i woulda called you a kiddie porn freak, not just saying this might not be right to post.
Isnt that pic just encouraging the "Hot HS jock" thread to start? heh heh... The kid is hot, no one denies that, i'm just asking is it proper to post pictures of someone who is probably 17 stating how hot you think they are?
While condemning this particular instance of 'under 18' photo may not be popular and possibly even absurd, PhillyFan may have a point. We would in fact (I think/hope) draw the line on what is proper somewhere. I can't fathom someone posting a pic of some kid in elementary school without his shirt on an calling him hot getting much applause here. Perhaps the legalistic age 18 boundary is not the proper boundary.
I think the common phrasing is 'pre-pubescent/post-pubescent.' And that is the standard that might make PhillyFan sleep better at night knowing that his friends are eyeing the bare chests of post-pubescent 17 year old men.
Either way, no man's bare torso constitutes pornography no matter what the age.
I think the common phrasing is 'pre-pubescent/post-pubescent.' And that is the standard that might make PhillyFan sleep better at night knowing that his friends are eyeing the bare chests of post-pubescent 17 year old men.
Either way, no man's bare torso constitutes pornography no matter what the age.
In response to a previous post, no, I wasn't "aroused" by that photo at all--I only looked at it for a few seconds. I was moved to respond only because of the supercilious moralizing in another post.
Continuing on this point, it is beyond doubt that there is, generally speaking, among (heterosexual) Americans, a presumption that we are morally weaker than straights. Consequently, many of us perceive a continual need to prove our worthiness by leading an exemplary life style & tolerating only such in other gay people. Particularly among those more attunded to conservative political thought, there is tendency to believe that we must "police ourselves" as a pre-requisite to any level of acceptance by American society. Perhaps that is what motivates the moralizers in this case.
Granted that this is alot to infer from a couple of posts, but then, it was other posters who implied that I was "aroused" by that photo & morally suspect. (For what it matters, I don't have any porn, in print or on my computers. In my opinion, porn banalizes sex, & why settle for a picture when I can have the real thing? ) That said, there is a growing, ominous tendency in today's America, with evangelical conservatives in the ascendant, to define ANY inference of teenage sexuality as paedophilia, any image (even clothed) that carries a connotation of eroticism or sexiness as pornography. Echoing another poster, I will LOOK at anything I want--& high school football players & wrestlers do make for fine eye-candy. If that is risking jail, then it's time to start looking for another country in which to live. Or at the very least to stand up & fight back.
Continuing on this point, it is beyond doubt that there is, generally speaking, among (heterosexual) Americans, a presumption that we are morally weaker than straights. Consequently, many of us perceive a continual need to prove our worthiness by leading an exemplary life style & tolerating only such in other gay people. Particularly among those more attunded to conservative political thought, there is tendency to believe that we must "police ourselves" as a pre-requisite to any level of acceptance by American society. Perhaps that is what motivates the moralizers in this case.
Granted that this is alot to infer from a couple of posts, but then, it was other posters who implied that I was "aroused" by that photo & morally suspect. (For what it matters, I don't have any porn, in print or on my computers. In my opinion, porn banalizes sex, & why settle for a picture when I can have the real thing?
) That said, there is a growing, ominous tendency in today's America, with evangelical conservatives in the ascendant, to define ANY inference of teenage sexuality as paedophilia, any image (even clothed) that carries a connotation of eroticism or sexiness as pornography. Echoing another poster, I will LOOK at anything I want--& high school football players & wrestlers do make for fine eye-candy. If that is risking jail, then it's time to start looking for another country in which to live. Or at the very least to stand up & fight back.
I don't see anything wrong with enjoying looking at the picture of a 17-year-old. Many 17-year-olds look 20, 21, 22. Just because he's 17, one can't be attracted to him? Seems absurd.
Having sex with him would, of course, be illegal. That would be a very bad idea and one I would not encourage.
Having sex with him would, of course, be illegal. That would be a very bad idea and one I would not encourage.
QUOTE
BillyBones:
Echoing another poster, I will LOOK at anything I want--& high school football players & wrestlers do make for fine eye-candy.
I think you just proved my point... The same can be said for someone who thinks a 14 year old is hot. they choose to look at what they want right or wrong. Sorry, but when you check out any website of younger looking guys, "all models are 18 and up"... it's done for a reason. Echoing another poster, I will LOOK at anything I want--& high school football players & wrestlers do make for fine eye-candy.
i am conservative yes, but pic police no... hell, i never link hot pics.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
when you check out any website of younger looking guys, \"all models are 18 and up\"... it's done for a reason.
The disclaimer you refer to is used on sites that contain sexually-explicit photographs -- in other words, pornography. when you check out any website of younger looking guys, \"all models are 18 and up\"... it's done for a reason.
Or are you proposing that EVERY photo whose subject appears to be 17 or under be subject to the same requirement? That EVERY adult who dares glance at a photo of teenagers is violating your concept of "morality"? That every teen photo is by definition pornographic?
Tell us, what is it that terrifies you so?
Apples and oranges there bub...
I can't figure out where the picture is. Is there a link to it from the page? Of course, I want to see the picture of this as I understand it handsome, shirtless young man only because I want to determine whether it's appropriate for us to be looking at it.
QUOTE
PhillyFan
is it proper to post pictures of someone who is probably 17
They're your apples, bub.
is it proper to post pictures of someone who is probably 17
QUOTE
Originally posted by PhillyFan:
is it proper to post pictures of someone who is probably 17 stating how hot you think they are?
PhillyFan's already complying.
[ April 28, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
you bring thinking to a whole new level.
I shall just leave you guys to your underage 17 yo's, just make sure the pages dont sick together when ya'all are done...
I shall just leave you guys to your underage 17 yo's, just make sure the pages dont sick together when ya'all are done...
"I think you just proved my point..."
I'm just skimming this thread.... and hate to admit it, but I'm inclined to agree with PhillyFan. eek!
Certainly everyone's free to do what they want to, but I personally don't think oggling (male or female) high schoolers is appropriate for adult men.
Certainly everyone's free to do what they want to, but I personally don't think oggling (male or female) high schoolers is appropriate for adult men.
QUOTE
canmark:
I'm just skimming this thread.... and hate to admit it, but I'm inclined to agree with PhillyFan. eek!
Certainly everyone's free to do what they want to, but I personally don't think oggling (male or female) high schoolers is appropriate for adult men.
I just KNEW you guys would finally come around to the dark side.
I'm just skimming this thread.... and hate to admit it, but I'm inclined to agree with PhillyFan. eek!
Certainly everyone's free to do what they want to, but I personally don't think oggling (male or female) high schoolers is appropriate for adult men.
At some point, you really do have to have some kinda semblance of morality-yes ,even among gays.
If you are old enough to be someone's dad and that person is by all accounts not even an adult yet-no, you shouldn't be trying to DO anything with them...it isn't that much of a leap from thought to action...and so many guys will try to bag a significantly underager if they can get by with it. If you haven't lived in europe then you probably don't know that just because the age of consent is lower doesn't mean that they don't have fine print regarding sexual conduct-yes, even in Amsterdamn. You better read up on your international laws. Yeh, there are young people who have amazing physiques and will be hot MEN- one day, that is the reaction that is normal not how young can you bag em. On the fair side for the other posts nobody said they were after "young meat" neither.Lets try to protect as much of innocence as possible..it's so rare and short-lived these days. Just a heads up guy from someone who had to reeducate a straight guy
that was molested by a guy "into younger men" when he was 13 and so became virulently homophobic. Perhaps the Media should focus less on sexual overtones and youth and more on maintaing healthy sexual attitudes.
If you are old enough to be someone's dad and that person is by all accounts not even an adult yet-no, you shouldn't be trying to DO anything with them...it isn't that much of a leap from thought to action...and so many guys will try to bag a significantly underager if they can get by with it. If you haven't lived in europe then you probably don't know that just because the age of consent is lower doesn't mean that they don't have fine print regarding sexual conduct-yes, even in Amsterdamn. You better read up on your international laws. Yeh, there are young people who have amazing physiques and will be hot MEN- one day, that is the reaction that is normal not how young can you bag em. On the fair side for the other posts nobody said they were after "young meat" neither.Lets try to protect as much of innocence as possible..it's so rare and short-lived these days. Just a heads up guy from someone who had to reeducate a straight guy
that was molested by a guy "into younger men" when he was 13 and so became virulently homophobic. Perhaps the Media should focus less on sexual overtones and youth and more on maintaing healthy sexual attitudes.
OK, everyone has some sense of right and wrong, and I'm all for preserving innocence to the extent possible. We have age of consent laws for a reason.
Having said that, I wouldn't assume that all aesthetic appreciation or admiration admiration of the human form automatically equals culpably carnal lust with intent to violate. The logical conclusion of that assumption would be to require the entire post-pubescent population to wear burqas 24/7.
Getting back to frerx's original question ... if the pic was printed in the NY Times Sunday Mag, it's public information (albeit copyright-protected). If you don't have access to a library that keeps copies of the Times that far back, presumably you could contact the Times about purchasing either a back issue or a photo reprint (subject to their policies on either -- and if they have concerns about who wants either and why, it's up to them to ask). What you do with whatever you obtain by either channel is up to you (and any copyright lawyers et al. who may be watching). As for the moral aspects of the question ... you have a conscience, so use it. Peace.
Having said that, I wouldn't assume that all aesthetic appreciation or admiration admiration of the human form automatically equals culpably carnal lust with intent to violate. The logical conclusion of that assumption would be to require the entire post-pubescent population to wear burqas 24/7.
Getting back to frerx's original question ... if the pic was printed in the NY Times Sunday Mag, it's public information (albeit copyright-protected). If you don't have access to a library that keeps copies of the Times that far back, presumably you could contact the Times about purchasing either a back issue or a photo reprint (subject to their policies on either -- and if they have concerns about who wants either and why, it's up to them to ask). What you do with whatever you obtain by either channel is up to you (and any copyright lawyers et al. who may be watching). As for the moral aspects of the question ... you have a conscience, so use it. Peace.
Perhaps I'm way off base here...but wasn't "American Beauty" about a 40-something man lusting over a teenage girl? And didn't it win one or more Oscars? I saw the movie and wasn't appalled and I certainly do not remember any public outcry over that theme...the fact that someone pointed out a picture of a high school football player and basically said "wow" is such a nonissue...don't we have other things to worry about?
I agree. As Charo used to say: " I talk about coochie-coochie all the time; but I know where to draw the line " ! !
QUOTE
Jonathan616:
morality-yes ,even among gays.
It's a Santorum-ism.
morality-yes ,even among gays.
How the hell did this wind up in the politics section?
QUOTE
IU-Charlie:
Perhaps I'm way off base here...but wasn't \"American Beauty\" about a 40-something man lusting over a teenage girl? And didn't it win one or more Oscars?
This is the theme of quite a few Hollywood films--older men obsessing over and then hooking up with hot young females. Woody Allen has made many films--including one truly great one, "Manhattan"--on this very theme. Teenage girls and whores--two of the most common straight Hollywood male fantasies, and if they can be combined, well, so much the better!Perhaps I'm way off base here...but wasn't \"American Beauty\" about a 40-something man lusting over a teenage girl? And didn't it win one or more Oscars?
But then gay filmmakers also have gotten into the act. "Leather Jacket Love Story, " "LIE" (about a truly underaged boy), "Love and Death on Long Island," and so on, are on the theme of man-adolescent love. It's quite a common theme in gay literature, and of course its origins go back to earliest human times.
I don't see the big deal with people being attracted to this 17-18 year old. It's not like he's 10 or 12 or 15 even. 17-18 isn't my my cup of tea, but 17-18 is on the cusp of manhood, isn't it? He IS a man--a young man, not a child. But then, you know, liberal-progressive morals are more expansive.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
How the hell did this wind up in the politics section?
Now that you mention it, this probably belongs in "Hot Jock Talk" since the subject is a photo of an athlete, partially in uniform, in a sports-related setting, which the starter of the topic has classified as, in essence, eye candy. How the hell did this wind up in the politics section?
It's not really about football per se, and there's no indication that it belongs in "Gays in Sports" (as it would if the player in question were an out gay athlete), but it isn't NSR either.
QUOTE
Cyd at Outsports:
I don't see anything wrong with enjoying looking at the picture of a 17-year-old. Many 17-year-olds look 20, 21, 22. Just because he's 17, one can't be attracted to him? Seems absurd.
But Cyd, have you or Jim ever posted pics of shirtless high school students in "Picture This?"
I don't see anything wrong with enjoying looking at the picture of a 17-year-old. Many 17-year-olds look 20, 21, 22. Just because he's 17, one can't be attracted to him? Seems absurd.
QUOTE
danimal:
It's not really about football per se, and there's no indication that it belongs in \"Gays in Sports\" (as it would if the player in question were an out gay athlete), but it isn't NSR either.
I'll bet it started in HJT or something and got moved here because of the morality uproar.QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
How the hell did this wind up in the politics section?
Now that you mention it, this probably belongs in \"Hot Jock Talk\" since the subject is a photo of an athlete, partially in uniform, in a sports-related setting, which the starter of the topic has classified as, in essence, eye candy. How the hell did this wind up in the politics section?
It's not really about football per se, and there's no indication that it belongs in \"Gays in Sports\" (as it would if the player in question were an out gay athlete), but it isn't NSR either.
Anyway, it may be illegal for YOU GUYS to hook up with him, but ::books ticket:: not me!
I see nothing wrong with thinking someone else is good looking, regardless of age. Who says that once you reach above 22 or something that you need to be attracted to something new? Chances are, if you think you would have found him attractive at 18, the same should hold for 80. Maybe asking for a large picture is a bit on the creepy side...which I think is what Philly was talking about, but seemed to leave that part out. Although he did mention that he wasn't much older than 18 himself...I think there's an arbitrary line on wha'ts a bit creepy and what's not. Yeah, consent laws are all fine and dandy, but those are mainly just for keeping children "safe". If a 17 year old and a 21 year old fall in love, I doubt anyone's going to complain much. Now change 21 to maybe 31 and you've got a problem.
The problem you guys all appear to have is Philly seemed to go off on a moral tangent and call it "Kiddie porn"...nothing of the sort, although I could see where he got on that tangent.
Anyway, you have no clue how old the guy is...maybe he's an idiot and failed so much he's 19? Maybe he's one of the oldest in his class? Blahblahblahblahblah.
I love not picking a clear side
QUOTE
ChillinOut69:
If a 17 year old and a 21 year old fall in love, I doubt anyone's going to complain much. Now change 21 to maybe 31 and you've got a problem.
Hence the "Romeo and Juliet laws" in some states that create exceptions based on the age difference (don't know if they go as high as 21, but the idea is that 18 or 19 isn't that much older than 16). The catch is that in at least one state (Kansas) the law specifically excludes same-sex sex (Romeo and Mercutio?), which resulted in a recent court case that got a lot of press.If a 17 year old and a 21 year old fall in love, I doubt anyone's going to complain much. Now change 21 to maybe 31 and you've got a problem.
Anyway, frerx wasn't trying to "hook up" ... and the photo had already been published in a mass-circulation newspaper (and was taken in a public place) ... and a shirtless guy isn't generally considered "porn" in Western culture ... so some of the comments struck me as overreaction.
As for "Picture This" it's probably best to play it safe and not include pics of high school athletes there ... but some teenage athletes have made the Olympics, including (I think) some who compete in uniforms that don't cover much, so I can see this question coming up again the next time that happens.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.