All right, I have no opinion on the filtering of MA content; I mean, it sucks if you're a mature, underage person, but what can you do. We live in the US of A. More so, it bothers me what one of the admins wrote in this journal: [link]

Whether you like it or not the only objective way to judge maturity is and always will be based upon your physical age.

Yes there are nine year olds who are "mature for their age" and there are thirty year olds who have the emotional maturity of a child of seven but when you boil it all down the only thing that counts is how old you are.

I have a serious problem with the statement "the only objective way to judge maturity is and always will be based on your physical age." Now, admittedly, one definition of maturity (according to my Oxford American) is "fully developed physically; full grown." However, I think it's pretty clear from context that what realitysquared is talking about here is, at least for the most part, not the age of sexual maturation (which, if we're looking for a specific cut-off date, would be closer to 12-16)--but the age of, as Oxford once again puts it for us, "having reached an advanced stage of mental or emotional development characteristic of an adult."

To put it simply, there is no way of telling, objectively, if someone has reached an advanced stage of mental or emotional development. Where does "an advanced stage of...development" begin and end? This simply isn't something that can be measured. Sure, you might argue that it's 18 years old, since that is what our legal system calls maturity; but that isn't an objective measure, that's what a bunch of lawmakers got together and decided. After all, it was not so long ago that "maturity" in this country meant 21, and not 18--yet 18-year-olds have proved that they are intelligent and mature enough to deserve the vote.

Moreover, he ends the statement on age with "the only thing that counts is how old you are," which, despite what he has just said (that there are nine year olds who are "mature for their age") implies that he believes anything but. Indeed, his whole statement in this section of his journal implies, if not states, that he believes that a person's physical maturity is a reflection of their emotional maturity. His words to the contrary are something akin to someone saying "I think homosexuals are going to hell--no offense if you're homosexual." realitysquared, if you truly believe that young adults can be mature, please reflect that better in your language. Perhaps by saying something like, "although I realize some young adults are more mature than 30-year-olds, our legal system and our culture does not see things this way, and moreover, it would be impossible to create or enforce a mature content filter that has a variable age."

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand deviantART's reasons for enforcing the MC filter, and I have no problem with it--I would rather devART kept it's artists and had this kind of legal enforcement than have artists leave because of a lack of it.

What I don't like is realitysquared's ageist attitude--that chlidren are not capable of being emotionally mature. I think that it's insulting to the many talented younger artists in deviantART to imply that it's "only their age that counts."



As always, please visit my website. My writing is really where I shine.

Clubs


Best Artists: