text:
Egon Schiele

Egon Leo Adolf Ludwig Schiele (12 June 1890 – 31 October 1918) was an Austrian Expressionist painter. His work is noted for its intensity and its raw sexuality, and for the many self-portraits the artist produced, including nude self-portraits. The twisted body shapes and the expressive line that characterize Schiele's paintings and drawings mark the artist as an early exponent of Expressionism. Gustav Klimt, a figurative painter of the early 20th century, was a mentor to Schiele.

Early life
Schiele was born in 1890 in Tulln, Lower Austria. His father, Adolf Schiele, the station master of the Tulln station in the Austrian State Railways, was born in 1851 in Vienna to Karl Ludwig Schiele, a German from Ballenstedt and Aloisia Schimak; Egon Schiele's mother Marie, née Soukup, was born in 1861 in Český Krumlov (Krumau) to Franz Soukup, a Czech father from Mirkovice, and Aloisia Poferl, a German Bohemian mother from Český Krumlov. As a child, Schiele was fascinated by trains, and would spend many hours drawing them, to the point where his father felt obliged to destroy his sketchbooks. When he was 11 years old, Schiele moved to the nearby city of Krems (and later to Klosterneuburg) to attend secondary school. To those around him, Schiele was regarded as a strange child. Shy and reserved, he did poorly at school except in athletics and drawing, and was usually in classes made up of younger pupils. He also displayed incestuous tendencies towards his younger sister Gertrude (who was known as Gerti), and his father, well aware of Egon's behaviour, was once forced to break down the door of a locked room that Egon and Gerti were in to see what they were doing (only to discover them developing film). When he was sixteen he took the twelve-year-old Gerti by train to Trieste without permission and spent a night in a hotel room with her.

Academy of Fine Arts
When Schiele was 14 years old, his father died from syphilis, and he became a ward of his maternal uncle, Leopold Czihaczek, also a railway official. Although he wanted Schiele to follow in his footsteps, and was distressed at his lack of interest in academia, he recognised Schiele's talent for drawing and unenthusiastically allowed him a tutor, the artist Ludwig Karl Strauch. In 1906 Schiele applied at the Kunstgewerbeschule (School of Arts and Crafts) in Vienna, where Gustav Klimt had once studied. Within his first year there, Schiele was sent, at the insistence of several faculty members, to the more traditional Akademie der Bildenden Künste in Vienna in 1906. His main teacher at the academy was Christian Griepenkerl, a painter whose strict doctrine and ultra-conservative style frustrated and dissatisfied Schiele and his fellow students so much that he left three years later.

Klimt and first exhibitions
In 1907, Schiele sought out Gustav Klimt, who generously mentored younger artists. Klimt took a particular interest in the young Schiele, buying his drawings, offering to exchange them for some of his own, arranging models for him and introducing him to potential patrons. He also introduced Schiele to the Wiener Werkstätte, the arts and crafts workshop connected with the Secession. Schiele's earliest works between 1907 and 1909 contain strong similarities with those of Klimt, as well as influences from Art Nouveau. In 1908 Schiele had his first exhibition, in Klosterneuburg. Schiele left the academy in 1909, after completing his third year, and founded the Neukunstgruppe ("New Art Group") with other dissatisfied students. In his early years, Schiele was strongly influenced by Klimt and Kokoschka. Although imitations of their styles, particularly with the former, are noticeably visible in Schiele's first works, he soon evolved his own distinctive style.

Klimt invited Schiele to exhibit some of his work at the 1909 Vienna Kunstschau, where he encountered the work of Edvard Munch, Jan Toorop, and Vincent van Gogh among others. Once free of the constraints of the academy's conventions, Schiele began to explore not only the human form, but also human sexuality. Schiele's work was already daring, but it went a bold step further with the inclusion of Klimt's decorative eroticism and with what some may like to call figurative distortions, that included elongations, deformities, and sexual openness. Schiele's self-portraits helped re-establish the energy of with their unique level of emotional and sexual honesty and use of figural distortion in place of conventional ideals of beauty. He also painted tributes to Van Gogh's Sunflowers as well as landscapes and still lifes.

In 1910, Schiele began experimenting with nudes and within a year a definitive style featuring emaciated, sickly-coloured figures, often with strong sexual overtones. Schiele also began painting and drawing children. Schiele's self portrait, Kneeling Nude with Raised Hands (1910), is considered among the most significant nude art pieces made during the 20th century. Schiele's radical and developed approach towards the naked human form challenged both scholars and progressives alike. This unconventional piece and style went against strict academia and created an uproar with its contorted lines and heavy display of figurative expression. At the time, many found the explicitness of his works disturbing.

From then on, Schiele participated in numerous group exhibitions, including those of the Neukunstgruppe in Prague in 1910 and Budapest in 1912; the Sonderbund, Cologne, in 1912; and several Secessionist shows in Munich, beginning in 1911. In 1911, Schiele met the seventeen-year-old Walburga (Wally) Neuzil, who lived with him in Vienna and served as a model for some of his most striking paintings. Very little is known of her, except that she had previously modelled for Gustav Klimt and might have been one of his mistresses. Schiele and Wally wanted to escape what they perceived as the claustrophobic Viennese milieu, and went to the small town of Český Krumlov (Krumau) in southern Bohemia. Krumau was the birthplace of Schiele's mother; today it is the site of a museum dedicated to Schiele. Despite Schiele's family connections in Krumau, he and his lover were driven out of the town by the residents, who strongly disapproved of their lifestyle, including his alleged employment of the town's teenage girls as models. Progressively, Schiele's work grew more complex and thematic, and he eventually would begin dealing with themes such as death and rebirth.

Neulengbach and imprisonment
Together the couple moved to Neulengbach, 35 km west of Vienna, seeking inspirational surroundings and an inexpensive studio in which to work. As it was in the capital, Schiele's studio became a gathering place for Neulengbach's delinquent children. Schiele's way of life aroused much animosity among the town's inhabitants, and in April 1912 he was arrested for seducing a young girl of 13, below the 14-year-old age of consent.

When the police came to his studio to place Schiele under arrest, they seized more than a hundred drawings which they considered pornographic. Schiele was imprisoned while awaiting his trial. When his case was brought before a judge, the charges of seduction and abduction were dropped, but the artist was found guilty of exhibiting erotic drawings in a place accessible to children. In court, the judge burned one of the offending drawings ("depicting a very young girl dressed only above the waist" ) over a candle flame. The twenty-one days he had already spent in custody were taken into account, and he was sentenced to a further three days' imprisonment. While in prison, Schiele created a series of 12 paintings depicting the difficulties and discomfort of being locked in a jail cell.

In 1913, the Galerie Hans Goltz, Munich, mounted Schiele's first solo show. A solo exhibition of his work took place in Paris in 1914.

World War I to death
In 1914, Schiele glimpsed the sisters Edith and Adéle Harms, who lived with their parents across the street from his studio in the Viennese district of Hietzing, 101 Hietzinger Hauptstraße. They were a middle-class family and Protestant by faith; their father was a master locksmith. In 1915, Schiele chose to marry the more socially acceptable Edith, but had apparently expected to maintain a relationship with Wally. However, when he explained the situation to Wally, she left him immediately and never saw him again. This abandonment led him to paint Death and the Maiden, where Wally's portrait is based on a previous pairing, but Schiele's is newly struck. (In February 1915, Schiele wrote a note to his friend Arthur Roessler stating: "I intend to get married, advantageously. Not to Wally." Despite some opposition from the Harms family, Schiele and Edith were married on 17 June 1915, the anniversary of the wedding of Schiele's parents.

Although Schiele avoided conscription for almost a year, World War I now began to shape his life and work. Three days after his wedding, Schiele was ordered to report for active service in the army where he was initially stationed in Prague. Edith came with him and stayed in a hotel in the city, while Egon lived in an exhibition hall with his fellow conscripts. They were allowed by Schiele's commanding officer to see each other occasionally.

During the war, Schiele's paintings became larger and more detailed. His military service, however, gave him limited time, and much of his output consisted of linear drawings of scenery and military officers. Around this time, Schiele also began experimenting with the themes of motherhood and family. His wife Edith was the model for most of his female figures, but during the war (due to circumstance) many of his sitters were male. Since 1915, Schiele's female nudes became fuller in figure, but many were deliberately illustrated with a lifeless doll-like appearance.

Despite his military service, Schiele was still exhibiting in Berlin. He also had successful shows in Zürich, Prague, and Dresden. His first duties consisted of guarding and escorting Russian prisoners. Because of his weak heart and his excellent handwriting, Schiele was eventually given a job as a clerk in a POW camp near the town of Mühling. There, he was allowed to draw and paint imprisoned Russian officers; his commander, Karl Moser (who assumed that Schiele was a painter and decorator when he first met him), even gave him a disused store room to use as a studio. Since Schiele was in charge of the food stores in the camp, he and Edith could enjoy food beyond rations.

By 1917, he was back in Vienna and able to focus on his artistic career. His output was prolific, and his work reflected the maturity of an artist in full command of his talents. He was invited to participate in the Secession's 49th exhibition, held in Vienna in 1918. Schiele had fifty works accepted for this exhibition, and they were displayed in the main hall. He also designed a poster for the exhibition; it was reminiscent of the Last Supper, with a portrait of himself in the place of Christ. The show was a triumphant success. As a result, prices for Schiele's drawings increased and he received many portrait commissions.

In the autumn of 1918, the Spanish flu pandemic reached Vienna. Edith, who was six months pregnant, died from the disease on 28 October. Schiele died only three days after his wife. He was 28 years old. During the three days between their deaths, Schiele drew a few sketches of Edith.

Style
Some critics such as Jane Kallir have commented upon Schiele's work as being grotesque, erotic, pornographic, or disturbing, focusing on sex, death, and discovery. He focused on portraits of others as well as himself. In his later years, while he still worked often with nudes, they were done in a more realist fashion. From a young age, Schiele drew with 'manic fluency'.

Art critic Martin Gayford wrote in The Spectator: 'He [Schiele] found his distinctive style very early. His entire oeuvre is that of a young man; most of the work in the first of the two rooms of this densely packed little exhibition dates from 1910 to 1911, when Schiele (1890–1918) was just 20. That helps to explain some tendencies: a half-disgusted preoccupation with sexuality and a similarly queasy fascination with examining his naked self. The male figures mainly seem to have been modelled by the artist, though it is hard to be certain since the head is often not included.'

Kallir and scholar Gerald Izenberg regard Schiele as fluid in sexuality and gender. Kallir says Schiele was "struggling with his own sexual feelings and gender norms" during a historical period of shifting gender expectations, the early women's movement, and criminalization of homosexuality. Some critics in the 21st century read his artwork as queer.

A less known fact about Schiele's career is that, during his studies at the School of Arts and Crafts in Vienna, he explored sculpture and created a number of small-scale clay and plaster sculptures.

Legacy
Schiele was the subject of the 1980 biographical film Excess and Punishment (aka Egon Schiele – Exzess und Bestrafung), originating in Germany with a European cast that explores Schiele's artistic demons leading up to his early death. The film was directed by Herbert Vesely and stars Mathieu Carrière as Schiele, Jane Birkin as his early artistic muse Wally Neuzil, Christine Kaufman as his wife, Edith Harms, and Kristina Van Eyck as her sister, Adele Harms. Also in 1980, the Arts Council of Great Britain produced a documentary film, Schiele in Prison, which looked at the circumstances of Schiele's imprisonment and the veracity of his diary. In 2016 another biographical film was released, Egon Schiele: Death and the Maiden (German: Egon Schiele: Tod und Mädchen).

Joanna Scott's 1990 novel Arrogance was based on Schiele's life and makes him the main figure. His life was also depicted in a theatrical dance production by Stephan Mazurek called Egon Schiele, presented in May 1995, for which Rachel's, an American post-rock group, composed a score titled Music for Egon Schiele. For The Featherstonehaughs contemporary dance company, Lea Anderson choreographed The Featherstonehaughs Draw On The Sketchbooks Of Egon Schiele in 1997. Glen Hansard, lead singer of Irish band The Frames, said (of writing the song Santa Maria) "...With Santa Maria, I was trying to write a song about Egon Schiele, and about him and his girlfriend, while they were both dying from Spanish flu...".https://www.threemonkeysonline.com/excreting-songs-glen-hansard-of-the-frames/3/

The novel The Flames (Doubleday, 2022) by the British author Sophie Haydock blends fact and fiction to tell a story of Schiele's four most significant muses. The book was named one of the best historical fiction novels of 2022 by The Times. The Italian translation, Le Fiamme (Salani, 2023), won the Premio Letterario Edoardo Kihlgren award for a debut novel in 2024.

Schiele's life and work have also been the subject of essays, including a discussion of his works by fashion photographer Richard Avedon in an essay on portraiture entitled "Borrowed Dogs." Mario Vargas Llosa uses the work of Schiele as a conduit to seduce and morally exploit a main character in his 1997 novel The Notebooks of Don Rigoberto.

Wes Anderson's film The Grand Budapest Hotel features a painting by Rich Pellegrino that is modeled after Schiele's style which, as part of a theft, replaces a so-called Flemish/Renaissance masterpiece, but is then destroyed by the angry owner when he discovers the deception. The cover of David Bowie's 1979 Lodger album is inspired by Schiele's self-portraits and an image of Schiele appears on the cover of the 2013 single The Stars (Are Out Tonight).

Julia Jordan based her 1999 play Tatjana in Color, which was produced off-Broadway at The Culture Project during the fall of 2003, on a fictionalization of the relationship between Schiele and the 12-year-old Tatjana von Mossig, the Neulengbach girl whose morals he was ultimately convicted of corrupting for allowing her to see his paintings. The opening chapters of Guy Mankowski's 2017 novel An Honest Deceit were cited to be heavily influenced by Schiele's paintings; in particular his portrayals of his sister, Gertrude.

Art collections
The Leopold Museum, Vienna houses perhaps Schiele's most important and complete collection of work, featuring over 200 exhibits. The museum sold one of these, Houses With Colorful Laundry (Suburb II), for $40.1 million at Sotheby's in 2011. Other notable collections of Schiele's art include the Egon Schiele-Museum, Tulln, the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere, and the Albertina Graphic Collection, both in Vienna. Viktor Fogarassy collected works by Schiele, including Dämmernde Stadt.

Nazi-looted art
Egon Schiele had among his admirers many Jewish art collectors whose collections were looted under the Nazis: in Germany from 1933, in Austria from the Anschluss of 1938, and in France from the German occupation of 1940. As a result, numerous restitution cases in the 21st century involve artworks by Schiele. Egon Schiele's Dead City, "Woman in Black Pinafore" (1911) and "Woman Hiding Her Face" (1912) were owned by Jewish cabaret artist and film star Fritz Grünbaum before the Nazis deported him to the Dachau concentration camp. Krumau (1916) was owned by Daisy Hellmann until it was seized by Nazis in 1942. She first made a restitution claim in 1948 but her heirs were not able to recover the Schiele until 2002: Austria's Nazi looting organization, the Vugesta, had auctioned Krumau at the Dorotheum in Vienna on 24–27 February 1942, where the Sanct Lucas gallery bought it on behalf of Wolfgang Gurlitt. In 1953, the City of Linz acquired it for the Neue Galerie in Linz. The 1917 painting by Egon Schiele, Portrait of the Artist's Wife was owned by Karl Mayländer, a Jewish businessman in Vienna who was killed in Auschwitz. Robert "Robin" Owen Lehman, the son of Robert Lehman, bought Portrait of the Artist's Wife (1917) in 1964 from Marlborough Gallery in London. Four Trees / Autumn Allée was owned by Josef Morgenstern who was arrested and deported to Auschwitz, where he was murdered.

The art gallery of the Jewish art dealer Lea Bondi Jaray, owner of the famous Portrait of Wally, was seized by the Nazis prior to his escaping to London. Wilted Sunflowers, which had been owned by Jewish art collector Karl Grunwald and seized by Nazis in Strasbourg, was discovered after a private collector took it to Christies for evaluation in 2005. Portrait of Wally, a 1912 portrait, was purchased by Rudolf Leopold in 1954 and became part of the collection of the Leopold Museum when it was established by the Austrian government, purchasing more than 5,000 pieces that Leopold had owned. After a 1997–1998 exhibit of Schiele's work at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the painting was seized by order of the New York County District Attorney and had been tied up in litigation by heirs of its former owner who claim that the painting was Nazi plunder and should be returned to them.

The dispute was settled on 20 July 2010 and the picture subsequently purchased by the Leopold Museum for US$19 million. In 2013, the museum sold three drawings by Schiele for £14 million at Sotheby's London in order to settle the restitution claim over its 1914 Schiele painting Houses by the Sea. The most expensive, Liebespaar (Selbstdarstellung mit Wally) (1914/15), or Two lovers (Self Portrait With Wally), raised the world auction record for a work on paper by the artist to £7.88 million. On 21 June 2013 Auctionata in Berlin sold a watercolor from 1916, Reclining Woman, at an online auction for €1.827 million (US$2.418 million). This is a world record for the most expensive work of art ever sold at an online auction.

title: Egon Schiele


text:
Manta ray

Manta rays are large rays belonging to the genus Mobula (formerly its own genus Manta). The larger species, M. birostris, reaches 7 m in width, while the smaller, M. alfredi, reaches 5.5 m. Both have triangular pectoral fins, horn-shaped cephalic fins and large, forward-facing mouths. They are classified among the Myliobatiformes (stingrays and relatives) and are placed in the family Myliobatidae (eagle rays). They have the largest brains and brain to body ratio of all fish, and can pass the mirror test.

Mantas are found in warm temperate, subtropical and tropical waters. Both species are pelagic; M. birostris migrates across open oceans, singly or in groups, while M. alfredi tends to be resident and coastal. They are filter feeders and eat large quantities of zooplankton, which they gather with their open mouths as they swim. However, research suggests that the majority of their diet (73%) comes from mesopelagic sources. Gestation lasts over a year and mantas give birth to live pups. Mantas may visit cleaning stations for the removal of parasites. Like whales, they breach for unknown reasons.

Both species are listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Anthropogenic threats include pollution, entanglement in fishing nets, and direct harvesting of their gill rakers for use in Chinese medicine. Manta rays are particularly valued for their gill plates, which are traded internationally. Their slow reproductive rate exacerbates these threats. They are protected in international waters by the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, but are more vulnerable closer to shore. Areas where mantas congregate are popular with tourists. Only a few public aquariums are large enough to house them.

Etymology
The name "manta" is Portuguese and Spanish for mantle (cloak or blanket), a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays. Mantas are known as "devilfish" because of their horn-shaped cephalic fins, which are imagined to give them an "evil" appearance.

Taxonomy
Manta rays are members of the order Myliobatiformes which consists of stingrays and their relatives. The genus Manta is part of the eagle ray family Myliobatidae, where it is grouped in the subfamily Mobulinae along with the smaller Mobula devil rays. In 2018, an analysis of DNA, and to a lesser degree, morphology, found that Mobula was paraphyletic with respect to the manta rays; that is, some members of genus Mobula are closer related to the members of the genus Manta than they are to fellow Mobula, and the researchers recommended treating Manta as a junior synonym of Mobula.

Mantas evolved from bottom-dwelling stingrays, eventually developing more wing-like pectoral fins. M. birostris still has a vestigial remnant of a sting barb in the form of a caudal spine. The mouths of most rays lie on the underside of the head, while in mantas, they are right at the front. The edges of the jaws line up while in devil rays, the lower jaw shifts back when the mouth closes. Manta rays and devil rays are the only ray species that have evolved into filter feeders. Manta rays have dorsal slit-like spiracles, traits which they share with the devil fish and Chilean devil ray.

Species
The scientific naming of mantas has had a convoluted history, during which several names were used for both the genus (Ceratoptera, Brachioptilon, Daemomanta, and Diabolicthys) and species (such as vampyrus, americana, johnii, and hamiltoni). All were eventually treated as synonyms of the single species Manta birostris. The genus name Manta was first published in 1829 by Dr Edward Nathaniel Bancroft of Jamaica. The specific name  birostris is ascribed to Johann Julius Walbaum (1792) by some authorities and to Johann August Donndorff (1798) by others. The specific name alfredi was first used by Australian zoologist Gerard Krefft, who named the manta after Prince Alfred.

A 2009 study analyzed the differences in morphology, including color, meristic variation, spine, dermal denticles (tooth-like scales), and teeth of different populations. Two distinct species emerged: the smaller M. alfredi found in the Indo-Pacific and tropical East Atlantic, and the larger M. birostris found throughout tropical, subtropical and warm temperate oceans. The former is more coastal, while the latter is more ocean-going and migratory. A 2010 study on mantas around Japan confirmed the morphological and genetic differences between M. birostris and M. alfredi.

A third possible species, preliminarily called Manta sp. cf. birostris, reaches at least 6 m in width, and inhabits the tropical West Atlantic, including the Caribbean.

Fossil record
While some small teeth have been found, few fossilized skeletons of manta rays have been discovered. Their cartilaginous skeletons do not preserve well, as they lack the calcification of the bony fish. Only three sedimentary beds bearing manta ray fossils are known, one from the Oligocene in South Carolina and two from the Miocene and Pliocene in North Carolina. M. hynei is a fossil species dating to Early Pliocene North America. Remains of an extinct species have been found in the Chandler Bridge Formation of South Carolina. These were originally described as Manta fragilis, but were later reclassified as Paramobula fragilis.

Characteristics
Manta rays have broad heads, triangular pectoral fins, and horn-shaped cephalic fins located on both sides of their mouths. They have horizontally flattened bodies with eyes on the sides of their heads behind the cephalic fins, and gill slits on their ventral surfaces. Their tails lack skeletal support and are shorter than their disc-like bodies. The dorsal fins are small and at the base of the tail. Mantas can reach 1350 kg. In both species, the width is about 2.2 times the length of the body; M. birostris reaches at least 7 m in width, while M. alfredi reaches about 5.5 m. Their skin is covered in mucus. Mantas normally have a "chevron" coloration. They are typically black or dark on top with pale markings on their "shoulders". Underneath, they are usually white or pale with distinctive dark markings by which individual mantas can be recognized, as well as some shading. Individuals can also vary from mostly black (melanism) to mostly white (leucism). These color morphs appear to be products of neutral mutations and have no effects on fitness. A pink manta ray has been observed in Australia's Great Barrier Reef and scientists believe this could be due to a genetic mutation causing erythrism. The fish, spotted near Lady Elliot Island, is the world's only known pink manta ray.

The two species of manta differ in color patterns, dermal denticles, and dentition. M. birostris has more angular shoulder markings, ventral dark spots on the abdominal region, charcoal-coloured ventral outlines on the pectoral fins, and a dark colored mouth. The shoulder markings of M. alfredi are more rounded, while its ventral spots are located near the posterior end and between the gill slits, and the mouth is white or pale colored. The denticles have multiple cusps and overlap in M. birostris, while those of M. alfredi are evenly spaced and lack cusps. Both species have small, square-shaped teeth on the lower jaw, but M. birostris also has enlarged teeth on the upper jaw. Unlike M. alfredi, M. birostris has a caudal spine near its dorsal fin.

Mantas move through the water by the wing-like movements of their pectoral fins. Their large mouths are rectangular, and face forward. The spiracles typical of rays are vestigial and concealed by small flaps of skin, and mantas must keep swimming with their mouths open to keep oxygenated water passing over their gills. The cephalic fins are usually spiraled but flatten during foraging. The fish's gill arches have pallets of pinkish-brown spongy tissue that collect food particles. Mantas track down prey using visual and olfactory senses. They have one of the highest brain-to-body mass ratios and the largest brain size of all fish. Their brains have retia mirabilia which may serve to keep them warm. M. alfredi has been shown to dive to depths over 400 m, while the Chilean devil ray, which has a similar structure, dives to nearly 2000 m.

Lifecycle

Mating takes place at different times of the year in different parts of the manta's range. Courtship is difficult to observe in this fast-swimming fish, although mating "trains" with multiple individuals swimming closely behind each other are sometimes seen in shallow water. The mating sequence may be triggered by a full moon and seems to be initiated by a male following closely behind a female while she travels at around 10 km/h. He makes repeated efforts to grasp her pectoral fin with his mouth, which may take 20 to 30 minutes. Once he has a tight grip, he turns upside-down and presses his ventral side against hers. He then inserts one of his claspers into her cloaca, where it remains for 60–90 seconds. The claspers form a tube and a siphon propels semen from the genital papilla into the oviduct. The male continues to grip the female's pectoral fin with his teeth for a further few minutes as both continue to swim, often followed by up to 20 other males. The pair then parts, the female being left with scars on her fin.

The fertilized eggs develop within the female's oviduct. At first, they are enclosed in an egg case while the developing embryos absorb the yolk. After hatching, the pups remain in the oviduct and receive additional nutrition from milky secretions. With no umbilical cord or placenta, the unborn pup relies on buccal pumping to obtain oxygen. Brood size is usually one or occasionally two. The gestation period is thought to be 12–13 months. When fully developed, the pup resembles a miniature adult and is expelled from the oviduct with no further parental care. In wild populations, an interval of two years between births may be normal, but a few individuals become pregnant in consecutive years, demonstrating an annual ovulatory cycle. The Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium has had some success in breeding M. alfredi, with one female giving birth in three successive years. In one of these pregnancies, the gestation period was 372 days and at birth the pup had a width of 192 cm and weight of 70 kg. In Indonesia, M. birostris males appear to mature at 3.75 m, while female mature around 4 m. In the Maldives, males of M. alfredi mature at a width of 2.5 m, while females mature at 3 m. In Hawaii, M. alfredi matures at a width of 2.8 m for males and 3.4 m for females. Female mantas appear to mature at 8–10 years. Manta rays may live as long as 50 years.

Behavior and ecology
Swimming behavior in mantas differs across habitats: when travelling over deep water, they swim at a constant rate in a straight line, while further inshore, they usually bask or swim idly around. Mantas may travel alone or in groups up to 50. They may associate with other fish species, as well as sea birds and marine mammals. Mantas sometimes breach or leap out of the water. Individuals in a group may make aerial jumps in succession. Mantas may leap forward and re-enter head first, tail first or make somersaults. The reason for breaching is not known; possible explanations include communication, or the removal of parasites and remoras (suckerfish).

Mantas visit cleaning stations on coral reefs for the removal of external parasites. The ray adopts a near-stationary position close to the coral surface for several minutes while the cleaner fish feed. Such visits most frequently occur when the tide is high. Individual mantas may revisit the same cleaning station or feeding area repeatedly and appear to have cognitive maps of their environment. In addition, it has been confirmed that reef manta rays form a bond with a specific individual and act together.

Mantas may be preyed upon by large sharks, orcas and false killer whales. They may also harbor parasitic copepods. Mantas can remove internal parasites by sticking their intestines up to 30 cm out of their cloaca and squeezing them out, often while defecating. Remoras adhere themselves onto mantas for transportation and use their mouths as shelter. Though they may clean them of parasites, remoras can also damage the manta's gills and skin, and increase its swimming load.

In 2016, scientists published a study in which manta rays were shown to exhibit behavior associated with self-awareness. In a modified mirror test, the individuals engaged in contingency checking and unusual self-directed behavior.

Feeding
Manta rays are filter feeders as well as macropredators. On the surface, they consume large quantities of zooplankton in the form of shrimp, krill, and planktonic crabs. In deeper depths, mantas consume small to medium-sized fish. Foraging mantas flatten their cephalic fins to channel food into their mouths. During filter feeding, small particles are collected by the tissue between the gill arches. The standard method of feeding for a lone manta is simply swimming horizontally, turning 180 degrees to feed in the other direction. Up and down movements, sideways tilting and 360 degree somersaults are also observed.

Mantas engage in a number of group feeding behaviors. An individual may "piggy-back" on a larger, horizontally feeding individual, placing itself over its back. "Chain-feeding" involves them aligning back-to-front and swimming horizontally. Chain-feeding mantas may create a circle, with the lead individual meeting up with the stragglers. More individuals may join, creating a "cyclone" of mantas spiraling upwards. With a diameter of 15 m, these cyclones consist of up to 150 mantas and last up to an hour. Studies have shown that around 27% of the diet of M. birostris is from the surface, while around 73% is at deeper depths. Mantas may forage on the ocean floor with the cephalic fins splayed apart.

During filter feeding, the gills may get clogged up, forcing mantas to cough and create a cloud of gill waste. The rays commonly do this above cleaning stations, providing a feast for the cleaner fish. Mantas defecate dark red fecal matter which is often mistaken for blood.

Distribution and habitat
Mantas are found in tropical and subtropical waters in all the world's major oceans, and also venture into temperate seas. The furthest from the equator they have been recorded is North Carolina in the United States (31°N) and the North Island of New Zealand (36°S). They prefer water temperatures above 68 °F and M. alfredi is predominantly found in tropical areas. Both species are pelagic. M. birostris lives mostly in the open ocean, travelling with the currents and migrating to areas where upwellings of nutrient-rich water increase prey concentrations.

Fish that have been fitted with radio transmitters have traveled as far as 1000 km from where they were caught, and descended to depths of at least 1000 m. M. alfredi is a more resident and coastal species. Seasonal migrations do occur, but they are shorter than those of M. birostris. Mantas are common around coasts from spring to fall, but travel further offshore during the winter. They keep close to the surface and in shallow water in daytime, while at night they swim at greater depths.

Threats
The greatest threat to manta rays is overfishing. M. birostris is not evenly distributed over the oceans, but is concentrated in areas that provide the food resources it requires, while M. alfredi is even more localized. Their distributions are thus fragmented, with little evidence of intermingling of subpopulations. Because of their long lifespans and low reproductive rate, overfishing can severely reduce local populations with little likelihood that individuals from elsewhere will replace them.

Both commercial and artisanal fisheries have targeted mantas for their meat and products. They are typically caught with nets, trawls, and harpoons. Mantas were once captured by fisheries in California and Australia for their liver oil and skin; the latter made into abrasives. Their flesh is edible and is consumed in some countries, but is unattractive compared to other fish. Demand for their gill rakers, the cartilaginous structures protecting the gills, has recently entered Chinese medicine. To fill the growing demand in Asia for gill rakers, targeted fisheries have developed in the Philippines, Indonesia, Mozambique, Madagascar, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Tanzania. Each year, thousands of manta rays, primarily M. birostris, are caught and killed purely for their gill rakers. A fisheries study in Sri Lanka and India estimated that over 1000 were being sold in the country's fish markets each year. By comparison, M. birostris populations at most of the key aggregation sites around the world are estimated to have significantly fewer than 1000 individuals. Targeted fisheries for manta rays in the Gulf of California, the west coast of Mexico, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and the Philippines have reduced populations in these areas dramatically.

Manta rays are subject to other human impacts. Because mantas must swim constantly to flush oxygen-rich water over their gills, they are vulnerable to entanglement and subsequent suffocation. Mantas cannot swim backwards, and because of their protruding cephalic fins, are prone to entanglement in fishing lines, nets, ghost nets, and even loose mooring lines. When snared, mantas often attempt to free themselves by somersaulting, tangling themselves further. Loose, trailing line can wrap around and cut its way into its flesh, resulting in irreversible injury. Similarly, mantas become entangled in gill nets designed for smaller fish. Some mantas are injured by collision with boats, especially in areas where they congregate and are easily observed. Other threats or factors that may affect manta numbers are climate change, tourism, pollution from oil spills, and the ingestion of microplastics.

Status
The IUCN listed the reef manta as vulnerable in 2019 and the giant manta as endangered in 2020. In 2011, mantas became strictly protected in international waters because of their inclusion in the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals. The CMS is an international treaty organization concerned with conserving migratory species and habitats on a global scale. Although individual nations were already protecting manta rays, the fish often migrate through unregulated waters, putting them at increased risk from overfishing. The Manta Trust is a UK-based charity dedicated to research and conservation efforts for manta rays. The organization's website is also an information resource for manta conservation and biology.

In 2009, Hawaii became the first of the United States to introduce a ban on the killing or capturing of manta rays. Previously, no fishery for mantas existed in the state but migratory fish that pass the islands are now protected. In 2010, Ecuador introduced a law prohibiting all fishing for manta and other rays, their retention as bycatch and their sale.

Relation with humans
The ancient Peruvian Moche people worshipped the sea and its animals. Their art often depicts manta rays. Historically, mantas were feared for their size and power. Sailors believed that they were dangerous to humans and could pull ships out to sea by the anchor. This attitude changed around 1976, when divers around the Gulf of California found them to be placid and safe to interact with. Several divers photographed themselves with mantas, including Jaws author Peter Benchley.

Aquariums
The Okinawa Ocean Expo Aquarium acquired mantas in 1978 which survived for four days. In addition, at the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium, a male manta ray, which started captivity in 1992 at its predecessor, the Okinawa Ocean Expo Aquarium, was recorded to have lived for approximately 23 years. The Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium houses manta rays in the "Kuroshio Sea" tank, one of the largest aquarium tanks in the world. The first manta ray birth in captivity took place there in 2007. Although this pup did not survive, the aquarium has since had the birth of four more manta rays in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. However, although Manta became pregnant in 2012, she was stillborn. In 2013, she became pregnant, but her mother, manta ray, died and the pup that was taken out died.

There are currently three mantas spending time at the Georgia Aquarium. One notable individual is "Nandi", a manta ray which was accidentally caught in shark nets off Durban, South Africa, in 2007. Rehabilitated and outgrowing her aquarium at uShaka Marine World, Nandi was moved to the larger Georgia Aquarium in August 2008, where she resides in its 23,848 m3 (6,300,000 US gal) "Ocean Voyager" exhibit. A second manta ray, "Tallulah", joined that aquarium's collection in September 2009 and a third was added in 2010.

The Atlantis resort on Paradise Island, Bahamas, hosted a manta named "Zeus" that was used as a research subject for three years until it was released in 2008.

Tourism
Manta ray tourism is estimated to generate over US$73 million per year and brings US$140 million per year to local economies. The majority of global revenues come from ten countries: Japan, Indonesia, the Maldives, Mozambique, Thailand, Australia, Mexico, United States, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. Divers may get a chance to watch mantas visiting cleaning stations and night dives enable viewers to see mantas feeding on plankton attracted by the lights. (movie: night swimming with mantas in Hawaii https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGn4BqqRcoE)

Ray tourism benefits locals and visitors by raising awareness of natural resource management and educating them about the animals. It can also provide funds for research and conservation. Constant unregulated interactions with tourists can negatively affect them by disrupting ecological relationships and increasing disease transmission.

In 2014, Indonesia banned fishing and export targeting mantas, as manta ray tourism is more economically beneficial than allowing them to be killed. A dead manta is worth $40 to $500, while the economic impact of tourism at a popular dive site can be $1 million per manta over its life. Indonesia has 5.8 e6km2 of ocean, and this is now the world's largest sanctuary for manta rays.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Manta ray


text:
Talk:Consensual crime

Blasphemy
I've put blasphemy back in. This is a free speech related offence. The fact that someone chooses to be offended by it, should not be the responsibility of the blasphemer. In a slander it is the person slandered that has the right of action. Since blasphemy is a slander against God, then only God should have the right to bring legal action, and not his self-appointed defenders. Eclecticology, Monday, April 29, 2002

 * In my system, but I believe that the same should happen in other latin systems too, there is a victim for this crime, that is against the respect of the religious sentiment, a human value and a moral patrimony. It has its victims in the persons that are offended, morally injured by such a behaviour.
 * Better if we try to define what we do intend for "blasphemy", before getting into an equivocal talk: it is for me (and for my vocabulary too) an unrespectful expression or action, most typically in oral form, that brings insult to a god, a saint, a religious entity or symbol in general.
 * This of course has nothing to do with the right of free speech. No one (in theory, perhaps) would ever prosecute me if I publicly discuss a religion, its dogmas, its members, its rules of conduct, whatever I like, with the sole limit that this has to be a discussion, therefore it cannot contain anything that could offend anyone (which is already a general rule). Good manners are not required (even if always welcome), only the fact that we respect the fact that other people believe in what we are discussing about.  My freedom of speech would end where the freedom of cult of other people begins.  They can profess and even preach, proclaim, predicate their religion as long as they don't offend me.  And I can discuss their religion and whatsoever as long as I respect their beliefs and don't offend them. This is freedom of speech, on both sides, as long as no one has an intention of insulting anyone or anything else.
 * The crime is not against God, for strange it might seem. We don't have virtual personalities other than the personality of the State that can be passive subjects of a crime, and we cannot consider God as a person or a personality. If you offend me because of my nationality, it won't be the Italian Republic to have a right of action against you, it would be my only simple person, the really offended subject (unless you were representing your State or another political or collective entity). Yet, the State has a personality that God has not. So, God is merely regarded as the object of religion of the citizens (of some of them) and not directly considered because by paradox He has no... legal relevance in Himself, He cannot be party in any procedure. This doesn't automatically mean that everyone is free to curse just because there is no available evident (legal) counter-party. And since the state in this case can be interested only by a very weak hypothesis of generical injury to the public order, we are not seriously talking about the State as offended personality, even if a rough element of this position could also be true.
 * The point is: the faithful is the ordinary victim of this crime/violation. The faithful in this case is not protected as a "defender" of God, because the eventual subsequent action is not a subrogation, nor a constitution of civil (?) party (I obviously refer to my system, I hope terms are comprehensible and that you can find corresponding elements in your system): the faithful is protected because of his essential right to live his religion in peace and without external troubles.
 * I have to know, because it it can be ordinarily foreseen, that if I curse against a certain God in front of a faithful, he will be offended by my words. So, if I curse, I have to take all my responsibility for the moral damage that I can cause. I cannot just simply offend and then go on completely uncensored. Note that at a general regard, not necessarily the listener has to be a faithful of what I am insulting, to be offended: a sensible person might be offended just the same. Just to make a precise case, if you curse against the jewish religion, which here is professed by a well known but really a very little community, most people, starting by me, would feel offended by a public blasphemy against jewish entities or symbols, even if they are not faithfuls of jewish religion - I would be offended, and I am not even a faithful at all. Could I deserve a protection by the legal system? Or do you expect the system should allow a factual freedom of insult?
 * We do agree (I'm sure) that everyone has the right to profess the religion he likes (and this is often a constitutional right); I also think that we can agree on the fact that the respect of the religious sentiment is a relevant part of the constitutional right of freedom of religion (and if a right is not protected by the system, there's no need of keeping it into the system).
 * I can just imagine, from your words, that this is quite far from the common mentality in other systems (we should perhaps find a place in Wikipedia for these crossing points, that are becoming many and interesting), and I was perhaps culturally biased (or still am now) in considering the respect of religious sentiments as a general value (juridical value; of juridical relevance; at a legal regard - I know perfectly well that we still have much to learn in this field!). But I tend to consider that something of these notes will certainly regard the systems in use in other great civilisations too.
 * So, I believe that a victim, an offended person exists in your system too, therefore blasphemy cannot be listed in the article.
 * My two eurocents :-) --Gianfranco
 * For the length of that there were more than two euro cents involved. I will wait a couple of days before I can give it fair and proper consideration.  My dictionary does specifically define blasphemy as a slander of God.  Is bestemmiare as narrow in its meanings as that?  I would like to make sure at least, that we are referring to the same act. Eclecticology

 * Sorry for length, Wikipedia often makes me exhume ancient arguments that were object of many long, very long academical debates in my youth. :-)
 * Well, on my side I have for "slander" some meanings that seem to sound as lighter than what bestemmiare describes. Bestémmia completely coincides in Italian with Blasfemìa, the only equivalent I have found for "blasphemy". And I have for bestemmia: oath, curse, swear. Sorry to get into details, but typically a bestemmia is a vulgar expression that unrespectfully puts into relationship God (or another religious figure) with animals or with sexual or otherwise scandalous arguments. So, it is a real offence like what one could say, in vulgar terms, about his worst enemy and... his mother. I hope the note wasn't too direct. --Gianfranco

 * The question of whether blasphemy is victimless or not can be settled rather easily: if you say "God sucks" in front of an atheist policeman with nobody else present, will he be required to arrest you? AxelBoldt

Alex, your test determines whether or not the act is a crime, not whether it is victimless. To test the latter, you simply ask everyone who complains, "Are you God"? If they cannot prove that they are, then they have no standing to complain. --LDC

 * (evidently) I am not God, and this I can prove, but I could however be offended by a sentence like the one above reported. I could suffer for it, I could be disturbed by the needless expression. Legally speaking, I could receive a moral damage as the consequence of that action.
 * Let's suppose I have a religious sentiment: I can consider it as an insult to my freedom of cult, directly, and I couldn't stand it.
 * Let's suppose I don't have a religious sentiment: I can consider it as an insult to someone else's freedom of cult and I can find that this would be not tolerable, and without even being biased by my own religious beliefs, because it is generally known that no real faithful would be joyful in hearing his most important beliefs being derided.
 * Am I really too sensible, do I suffer from a superiority complex, or in the place you live in I could insult everyone without ever suffering any consequence? I believe you have in your system both a crime for the simple insult and a law for protecting the freedom of cult. If your system has these two elements, your system should respect the religious sentiment. This doesn't force you to have one, if you don't want to have one. This only forces you to respect the beliefs of other people. The offended persons of a not victimless crime.
 * If I don't believe in your God, I don't need to laugh at what you deeply consider so serious for your soul. I could discuss, respectfully, not sneer at your beliefs. The contrary being a conduct that causes damage (moral damage), therefore creating a passive subject of the crime.
 * Just a detail about the victims and a POV about your test: I'd preferably simply ask everyone who complains: "Are you a faithful"? But whatever it might be, I wouldn't wait for the answer, because it makes no difference to me. --Gianfranco

Hrmmm... Maybe I'm just weird, but don't have to actually believe in a given religion to blaspheme it? Otherwise it's just plain disrespect, which is another matter entirely. I could say "may God rot in Hell"; if I were Christian, this would be blasphemy; if I were an atheist, this would simply be an ironic and disrespectful description of attitude towards the Judeo-Christian god. One can also slander, libel, or defame the followers of a religion or cult, in which case injury does occur, and is prosecutable. But simply performing an act of blasphemy would be an internal matter for the religion in question, would it not? pgdudda

 * In a free country like the US, sure. But try calling the prophet Muhammed a fat whoremonger in an Islamic country and see if the local government thinks you're just being "disrespectful".  Blasphemy against a state-sanctioned religion has been and is today a punishable crime regardless of what the speaker personally believes.  And that's what this article is about--criminal offenses. --LDC

 * Depends on the country; while their legal term for it may be "blasphemy", it actually falls under the heading of "insulting (insert religion here)" - which is still, IMO, a "victimless" crime. Of course, the subject of blasphemy falls under the general heading of "freedom of (and from) religion" principle outlined, for example, in the U.S. Constitution.  Islamic states do not have the same sorts of legal protections, although the freedom of religious practice varies from country to country.  Just my extra 2 US cents' worth of thought.  pgdudda

Blasphemy to the state
I'm not totally sure about it, but I think that in some countries it is a crime to offend the state itself, or the flag, the himn (not to stand up while it sounds), or the king, the president, etc. Shouldn't they be considered Consensual crime, just the same as blasphemy? --Pinzo 09:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Some countries have laws protecting national institutions and culture. I think it would make sense to change the 'religion' section to 'religion and culture', and move 1 or 2 examples accordingly. --Townmouse 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights and patents
I'm removing mention of IP law from here. I happen to be a non-believer in those laws as well, but they are an entirely separate category since there is a clearly identifiable plaintiff in those cases (i.e., the author or inventor). Whether or not such a plaintiff has the right to complain about the use of his work is another matter, but it's not the same as the case of a crime in which the only plaintiff is the state. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
 * Very well, I can see that point.
 * There's still no explanation, however, for removing seatbelt laws! Eclecticology
 * Seatbelt law violations are not victimless, in some senses (though perhaps not in the sense of this article, I'm not sure). In a society with either health insurance or a public health scheme it costs the funders of the health scheme a great deal of money (because the injuries to unbelted passengers are more substantial, on average, and require more expensive medical treatment, and they are also more likely to die).  Secondly, it means that other road users have a greater risk of causing death and injury from a driving mistake.  --Robert Merkel

I didn't remove seatbelt laws, and they clearly do belong here. One can make thin arguments for "harm" to third parties caused by all of these things--that doesn't change their essential nature as consensual activities. Yes, in a society with public health spending, risky behaviors can harm others--but one could argue that that's a good reason not to have public spending on health care just as well as a reason to criminalize risky behavior. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

If no copyright owner can be identified, as in the case of a work of corporate authorship after several mergers and bankruptcies, then who is the victim of criminal copyright infringement? And if the author has been dead for 60 years, who is the victim? --Damian Yerrick 03:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also orphan works. --Damian Yerrick 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gambling and recreational drugs
As far as gambling and drugs concerned, one of the major arguments for laws prohibiting or regulating them is that indulging in them can harm others (for instance, a gambler losing all their money and thus lacking the ability to purchase essential items for their family), and the easiest and most humane way to protect people from this harm is to restrict access to the activity that can cause this consequential harm. --Robert Merkel

I think the article should make clear that there are two entirely different ways to justify consensual crime laws: Virtually all consensual crime laws are justified in both ways. Opponents of consensual crime laws discard the first type of justification as irrelevant and argue against the second justification by either AxelBoldt
 * the proscribed activities are immoral
 * the proscribed activities lead to harmful effects to third parties in the future.
 * denying the harmful effects, or
 * arguing for proscribing activities "closer to the harm".

...and also that laws against such things often cause more harm than the things themselves. --LDC

"Denying" sounds too negative. I'd say "showing evidence against the harmful effects." --Damian Yerrick

Statutory rape
I removed: ..and will replace it with "statutory rape", which is what I think you have in mind. First, "pedophilia" is a psychological condition, not an act. It is not, in itself, a crime to be attracted to children--just to act on that attraction by actually molesting one. Second, the "pedo-" prefix assumes that the victim, even though giving apparent consent, is truly a "child", and therefore incapable of informed consent. "Statutory rape" is a better example here, because even the word itself makes clear that the reason it's considered rape is that the law says so. It is often prosecuted for relations among teenagers who are quite obviously not "children" in any meaningful sense, and who are quite worldly and experienced enough that their consent is fully informed and real, yet it is a crime anyway.
 * Pedophilia, where the minor participant is a willing actor.
 * ...oops, you beat me to it. Yes, I think that's much better. --Unknown
 * In analysis of this issue, we're looking only at legal consent. As we know, all ages for voting, sexual consent, drinking and smoking are not actually founded in a direct attribute of the person. They are arbitrary, though likely based in good statistical averages of maturity. That a child cannot give legal consent does not mean they don't aren't able to give informed mature consent, but that they are not of the proper age recognized by the law as being able to give it. In the future it's more sensible to base this cognitive attribute on testing rather than chronology, wouldn't you agree? --Tyciol 07:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed statutory rape as it is not fit for inclusion in the article. The article states in the introduction that the activities take place between consenting adults. This is, by definition, untrue for the case of statutory rape. --Dante Alighieri 10:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Only if you define "adult" as "over the legal age of consent in the country you happen to be living in". However, in this context, "adult" means "capable of giving consent". For example, if they set the age of consent for anal sex to 70, then anal sex under the age of 70 would be statutory rape and a consensual crime. It's certainly controversial whether statutory rape should be regarded as a consensual crime, and we need to take care over a NPOV, but it is on topic and can be discussed in the article. Martin 16:34 10 Jul 2003 (UTC) (edited - I wasn't clear)

 * I didn't say that it wasn't on topic or shouldn't be discussed, just that, given the definition given for consenual crimes, it was ineligible on its face from inclusion. I still feel that way. You are, of course, welcome to tidy up the definition of consenual crime to make stautory rape fit the definition. --Dante Alighieri 19:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's important to note that there's a difference between "legal consent", and "consent" in a non-legal sense (ie, agreement). The problem with saying that statutory rape isn't a consensual crime is that the same argument could be made for cases involving adults - most notably, sadomasochism. In the UK at least, you cannot consent to assault, which is why it is illegal - but by the above logic, this is not a consensual crime! However, at the same time it should surely be noted that people do consent, in a non-legal sense, and that many people consider it to be a consensual crime. Mdwh 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've added this back in - it's a perfect example of a consensual crime. (That the person can't legally be considered consent is true of all consensual crimes - the whole point of a consensual crime is one where the state decides that a person's consent is not legally valid.) Mdwh 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Human cloning
"Human reproduction outside ordinary methods, such as chemical or genetic interventions, birth control (illegal in many places), human cloning."

Cloning creates a human who has not (of course) given his/her consent to being a clone. It could have negative effects on this persons life and he/she could be considered a victim. I am not sure what is the meaning of "chemical or genetic interventions" and maybe it should be clarified.

Black market and trade in dangerous items
"The black market, or trade in general in such things as unapproved products or unlicensed services (to willing and fully informed buyers)."

The term black market may involve trading with stolen goods or dangerous materials that the person buying them might not be able to handle properly. This is a risk for other people.

"Simple ownership of certain inanimate objects, such as guns, or substances such as plutonium or nerve gas."

The owner may not again be able to handle these objects properly. -XeoX

 * There is a big difference between guns and plutonium or nerve gas, and they shouldn't be listed right next to each other. Modern firearms are totally inanimate and incapable of causing harm without some person or other animate entity being involved. But plutonium and nerve gas can cause harm without any one's active involvement. (But I can't think of a good way to split them right at this instant, so I'm not doing anything about it.) -Jay Kominek
 * Guns can be discharged accidentally, so they are a legitimate example of a dangerous object. As far as I know, there are no laws distinguishing between guns being accidentally discharged by 'animate entities' like people and animals, and otherwise (e.g. in a fire, or due to defects in the weapon).  (Actually I'm a bit surprised by your qualifier that only modern firearms are inanimate.  Unless you're including the horses in horse-drawn artillery.)
 * However, firearms and other weapons are also sometimes banned as devices used to commit crimes, which I've added as a separate category. I've substituted fireworks as a better example of objects banned due to the danger of accidents.
 * --Townmouse 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abortion
Many people would disagree that this is a "victimless crime". There are enough examples already without heading into murky territory.
 * This would be dependant upon what constitutes a 'victim' and generally, the rationalization of what constitutes human. Generally, in it's embryonic stage, the killing of the embryo IS a victimless crime. I am unsure of what stage is generally accepted as defining conciousness, but it is beyond that. Where to draw the line (I know some clinics have a cutoff of how many months they'll do) would be the issue to judge here, and I'm sure we could draw upon the abortion wiki and related ones to help us here. --Tyciol 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensual kidnap
Do we know enough about consensual kidnap to put that in the list, or is it already covered under other sections? 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even lead to an article. Is consensual kidnapping even a crime? It sounds like going on a trpi with me. If you report a kidnapping to the police and they both went along with it, that would be more of obstructing justice for both parties. It is interesting to think of how this might be dealt with.--Tyciol 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with victimless crime?
Should this article be merged with the article on victimless crime? --Serge 02:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think so. Let's put up tags and start a vote. I'll do that in a couple of days if nobody objects (or does it first). Jules LT 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Why bother with a vote if no one is objecting? I suggest that if no one objects, with good reason, by, say the end of November 2005, just do it. --Serge 05:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Somebody appaears to already have copy-and-pasted an older version of victimless crime into this article. But they pasted the rendered text, NOT the wikitext source, and it looks pretty bad.  I'm going to delete that part, and perhaps start a proper merge.  Jamie 11:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. While "consensual crime" is more technically correct as a label for what is being described, "victimless crime" is a much better-known and more widely used phrase.  They should remain separate, but linked. -- User:  Marc

 * I think a merge would be good, to avoid duplicating content, and discussions (eg, whether or not consensual crimes should involve those who can't legally consent, such as children - currently, the two articles are taking different sides on this issue). But I think it should be noted that victimless and consensual are not necessarily equivalent. Consensual crimes would be things like sadomasochism, but in some cases there may be hurt done. A victimless crime would be things like speeding or drink driving, where no one is actually hurt - the issue of consent either doesn't apply, or you could say that the other drivers who are put at risk never consent to this situation. Mdwh 22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Both articles state the terms as interchangable, and the content seems to be very similar. I'm not sure which should be merged into which though - I agree that "victimless crime" is the more well-known term, even if "consensual crime" is technically correct. --Seanlavelle 13:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not. They are completely different concepts and ideas. In a consensual crime, all the participants will be liable whether as joint principals or as principals and accessories, whereas a crime is victimless when it cannot be committed by the victim even though he or she may be a consensual participant in its commission. David91 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your definition of a victimless crime, "when it cannot be committed by the victim even though he or she may be a consensual participant in its commission". How can you refer to "the victim" of a "victimless crime" when such a crime has no victim, by definition?  --Serge 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe a large dividing point between consensual and victim would be people's perception of what can constitute a victim and if one can be a victim even when giving consent, or not give consent yet not be a victim. For example, are we using LEGAL consent? Would we apply a similar legal status to 'victim'? I'm not aware that exists, it's a much more interpretive term, generally when someone is victimized, they are hurt. Issues like legal consent exist to prevent victamization, but because legal consent is violated it does not necessarily mean someone is victimized, meaning hurt or disadvantaged. Age of consent, for example. It might be an intellectually or emotionall consensual act, but certainly not a legal one, and yet it could be a victimless crime. It would still be prosecuted in respect of the law to protect minors from becoming victims which is very frequent with underaged sex. --Tyciol 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean slate
I have separated the two pages and now leave it to others to build on consensual crime and rewrite victimless crime so that it is not NPOV. David91 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sleep sex and necrophilia material removed
I have removed the following material:
 * Sticky issues of consensual crime involve sleep sex and necrophilia. People who are asleep or dead (unconcious) cannot consent to sex as it is happening, or object to it during the act. Even so, consent can be given prior to becoming unconcious. During sex between trusting partners, permission does not need to be asked for every single act or position throughout the act, as there is mutual trust and understanding, and in an ongoing physical relationship, sex may happen without any verbal or physical communication at all, simply through inferred consent. For issues like sleep and death, generally a written contract or proof of permission is a good idea since lack of resistance or refusal is not grounds for believing there is permission and acceptance.

As far as I know, there are no such crimes as sleep sex and necrophilia. Hence, the inserted passage starts off with a false step. If the sleeping partner is alive and there was no prior consent, e.g. by virtue of a subsisting sexual relationship, this would be rape or an indecent assault and so covered under the ordinary offences. I suppose there are offences involving the desecration of the dead in various jurisdictions, but since the "victim" is dead before, during and after the event, consent cannot be an issue. Thus, there are no sticky issues of any sort here. Unless you know better that is. As an aside, the links to assisted suicide and euthanasia both direct to euthansia, and euthanasia itself is not, so far as I know, an identified offence whereas complicity in suicide is, but... David91 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As of 2003, necrophilia is a crime in the UK, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't illegal in at least some other places. I doubt that someone consenting whilst alive would change this.

 * And there is no crime labelled "euthanasia", but the act of euthanasia is most certainly a crime. See my points below - not every word we use is used in the sense of "a crime with this name". After all, there isn't a specific crime for say, sadism and masochism, but we still list that as an example of a consensual crime. Mdwh 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for bringing me up to date. It is remarkable what young legislators think is important these days. Necrophilia: s70 creates an offence for A intentionally to penetrate sexually any part of the body of a corpse with A's penis, any other body part or any other object, knowing or being reckless as to whether he is penetrating any part of a corpse. A commits no offence if B dies during intercourse unless A realises and continues to penetrate her/him. But this is not a consensual crime. It is a victimless crime. The policy of the offence is to prevent conduct deemd disrespectful to a corpse. For the record, the law treats a dead body as property to be protected from damage and not as a person capable of giving consent. As I said above, the issue of consent is irrelevant in dealing with necrophilia. I have added a sentence or two on rape to reinstate your point about sleep.
 * The whole point of this article is to identify conventional crimes and to show whether or not consent by the participants will excuse the behaviour. Hence, it does not matter what the lay public may or may not call the offences, in law, rape is rape, murder is murder, assault is assault. etc. Thus, the format we have adopted is to begin with the offence and then, by way of example of the situation we have in mind, use the lay terms to make things more clear to the reading public. We may properly start off with assault, and then mention S&M. And I have not removed the reference to euthansia because, despite the technical offence under the classificatrion of homicide, lay people think of some situations as euthanasia even though not all deaths are good ones (literal translation). David91 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to apologize for my presumptuousness in adding these two before discussing the proposal here, I had neglected to read and recognize that the talk section was well patrolled by people who feel strongly about the issue. As such, I will attempt to define my opinion more clearly:

 * Sleep sex, even with a prior romantic relationship, is something that should in good a good conservative stance, be discussed beforehand. Consenting to any variety of sexual intercourse while awake does not imply that someone would like sexual activity while unconcious. It is something that should be asked beforehand, and if the person requests notification upon waking of what has transpired, they should also be told or it should be considered rape as well. Necrophilia, similarly should be contemplated under those circumstances of getting prior approval. As you have shown, there are examples of necrophilia being specifically outlawed as a crime. Furthermore, instances such as Schwarzenneggar's corpse defilement are shady get-arounds that skip about the issue. My knowledge of law is limited, but is it generally acceptable for a person to decide on how they allow their remains to be 'vandalized'? If a person states in their will that they consent to their remains being used by certain parties for necrophilia, it sounds reasonable to assume that this would be legal. Obviously, if consent is not given, then a crime is commited. Even under that situation, it would be one of vandalization rather than 'necrophilia' as a specific crime, although mental anguish by surviving relatives/caretakers of the deceased' corpse could be taken into account for their property having been damaged. --Tyciol 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, a corpse is property owned by a nominated beneficiary in a will (e.g. a hospital) or by the next-of-kin or, by default, the owners of the cemetery where it has been buried. No provision in a will for the sexual treatment of the corpse would be valid or relevant. Theoretically, only the owners of the body could consent. No issue of consent by the corpse as victim can arise and any reference to it falls outside the terms of this page except in the extreme situation of one partner dying during sexual intercourse and the other continuing knowing of the death. As to the nature of the offence, it might be vandalism in the U.S. but there is a specific offence in the UK. David91 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If they continue knowing of the death (that'd be hard to prove though) that would definately be necrophilia, the minute someone dies their corpse would become property of the nominated beneficiary. That... or when the doctor declares them dead... does the law recognize estimated time of death or the doctor's death statement? That sure is a sticky issue, I guess the only way it could occur without it being property vandalization and outside interference is if: 1. The perpetrator of necro is the beneficiary. 2. A clause in the will stating possession of nominated beneficiary status based upon the clause that prosecution not be charged against said persons engaged in sexual violation of the corpse. I wonder how that would work... if the clause negated their ownership upon the moment of pressing suit against necro-perpetrator, would the suit still hold up because before that clause took effect they were still owners? Very confusing legalities... Tyciol 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the offender is the beneficiary is irrelevant because no-one can give a consent that would prevent this from being a crime. The crime is committed when penetration occurs with the relevant knowledge of death. Anyway, I fear that this discussion is original research. I do not think that any of the standard textbooks on criminal law would explore this detail. That said, it is quite interesting to think about the technicalities of it. Law can be fun. David91 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Murder vs assisted suicide
Regarding David91's changes, I think the disagreement is that you are looking at strictly legal terms, whilst I am not. I said "i.e., Assisted Suicide", you moved this to later on to say it is only called that in certain countries. However, even in countries where this is considered murder, it is still known as "assisted suicide". This is not the legal crime, but the concept, and I feel that the article assisted suicide is far more specific and relevant that that of murder (which mostly covers it as a non-consensual crime).

Consider the difference between these two examples:
 * Assault, where both parties consent. Some countries have characterised some of the possible situations as sadism and masochism.
 * Sexual and non-sexual conduct involving the use or threatened use of violence which causes injuries (e.g., sadism and masochism), which would be considered assault.

In the first case, we start off with the legal criminal definition, in the second, we start off with a non-legal description (which applies whether it is legal or not), and then specify that it could be considered illegal.

I believe that the first case carries the implication that these things are immoral (referring to S&M as "assault", referring to assisted suicide as "murder"). Also, terms like assisted suicide and sadism and masochim are used in all countries, and are nothing to do with the legal situation. Since we go with the second case for the other examples, I don't see why assisted suicide should be different. At the least, even if we start off with "Murder", I'd like to revert my "i.e. assisted suicide" nearer the top, since that is what we are talking about. Mdwh 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Generally, see my comments above. I agree about the example of sexual and nonsexual conduct. It is inconsistent. I have amended it, David91 07:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Incest
Incest between 2 consenting adults in various countries is a crime. Refer to the Incest page for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.12.252 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples section is written in an non-encnclopedic way
The last section of the 'Examples' section is written in a discussionary rather than factual way, asking if the reader agrees. It should be written in a more objective, citation-driven style Fones4jenke (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedic* Fones4jenke (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Criminal transmission of HIV
I've significantly modified this section under examples. Regarding the edits I made, treatment options for HIV have improved enough that calling it a terminal disease equivalent to homicide doesn't feel right. I also removed the part about how partners "should" expect a warning for two reasons: 1.) it felt inappropriate to speak on behalf of others and 2.) the U=U debate makes this more complicated. Additionally, I'm not quite sure if this example should be on the list at all, since it's unclear to me if being a consensual crime would require consenting to the act resulting in a crime (sexual activity) or the crime itself (transmission). Someone with more legal knowledge would need to look into it. (P.S. I'm still figuring out the watchlist, ping if you want my attention.) Duckduckgoop (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Consensual crime