Talk:Lascivious behavior

Best Example

Are "sex crimes such as child rape" really considered to be an act of lewdness?. Joel Feinberg (The moral limits of the criminal law) lists lewdness as one of the many acts that can cause serious offense (the offense principle), whereas child rape obviously goes beyond mere offense. WikiMetus 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lascivious is generally unecessary when there is an actual injury, however, injury can be relative and it is the nature of the conduct that makes it lascivious, not whether or not there is an injury. I put child rape in this description because I was going for the least controversal lascivious crime. A more common version refers to "lascivious depiction of the genitals." This is to differentiate the sexual nature of pornography from the medical depictions.

In US law consider for example § 1461.

"Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance...[i]s declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier." 18 USCS § 1461

interpreted by the court as:

The words of § 1461, "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile," connote something that is portrayed in a manner so offensive as to make it unacceptable under current community mores. While in common usage the words have different shades of meaning, n4 the statute since its inception has always been taken as aimed at obnoxiously debasing portrayals of sex. n5 Although the statute condemns such material irrespective of the effect it may have upon those into whose hands it falls, the early case of United States v. Bennett, 24 Fed. Cas. 1093 (No. 14571), put a limiting gloss upon the statutory language: the statute reaches only indecent material which, as now expressed in Roth v. United States, supra, at 489, "taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."

Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478, 482-484 (U.S. 1962).

I am open to other examples, but I think the example should be as non-contraversal as possible to prevent an unending debate. Manney 18:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I suggest this article be merged with Lust, as it's not much more than a brief description of the legal aspects of lasciviousness, which is, essentially, the same as lechery/lust. There should simply be a new heading about lasciviousness' legal properties in the Lust article. I will add a merge-proposal template to the top of the article shortly. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrible style

I move to delete all text from '"the legal term" Lewd&Lascivious' to the end of the paragraph on account of near-incomprehensible syntax and numerous grammar errors, as well as dubious factual accuracy. 89.102.132.125 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)