Yeah I know I argued a lot with my boyfriend that the author of Alice in Wonderland is NOT a pedo because the real Alice was 12 at the time he fancied her and back then it was not wrong.

Even today some 13 year olds are more mature than I am for example, but that still does not make it right to have sex with them?

I know what he is saying I just have no time for him, he is just full of ****.

A*

If a thirteen year old is more emotionally mature than you are now, and you consider yourself mature enough to be having sex, why should they not also?

Beastiality is only outlawed in 30 something states last I knew. However, generally animal cruelty laws can be brought up.

You cannot say ALL 13 year olds are emotionally mature just because one is.

I don't consider myself to be, the government does.

I know people who have had sex at 13 and have consented but it is usually with people their own age.

You'll live.

But do you have sex?

If *a* 13 year old is emotionally mature enough to have sex, who are you to say they should not. Who is the government to say they should not.

I don't consider any thirteen year old I've met to be that emotionally mature enough, and certainly not physically mature enough for me to want to be having sex with them. But if there is a 13 year old who is mature enough, I'm not going to be the one telling them it's wrong. Laws are very simplified and all encompassing and ignores the shades of grey (by the necessity to be quantifiable for useful enactment purposes) but that doesn't mean that society should consider it disgusting for somebody to have sex the day before their 16th birthday.

Yes but I am 17 living away from home and independent so obviously I am mature enough.

The age of consent laws are there to protect those who are not sexually or emotionally ready to do it. Anyway who really is going to follow it up if 2 13 year olds have sex?

What's wrong? after your big speech I would have thought you'd be able to discuss your opinions. Enlighten us; why is it that watching a child get raped (and enjoying it) isn't wrong? It's interesting that you were so articulate and outspoken before and yet the minute your opinions are questioned you clam up with a sarcastic remark like that and try to deflect all attention from yourself.

its not about them having sex,.....its about them having sex with someone of age,.....

Because it in and of itself doesn't harm a non-consenting party. Providing a market for harm isn't the same thing as causing harm. Enjoying something, no matter how depraved it may be, isn't damaging. The rape is bad because the child is unconsenting. When you rape someone you deny them of their rights, you're impeding their freedom. That is why rape shouldn't be permissable. However, simply watching something doesn't take away any rights, and quite the opposite taking away someone's right to watch something impedes their freedoms.

Oh?

Non sequitur.

Yes, and when you hit the age of 16 you undergo, overnight, an incredible metamorphosis that turns you into a far more knowledgeable, responsible and mature human being.

If a person is emotionally mature enough to consent to sex, why does it matter the age of the person they're consenting to? They're either mature enough, or they're not.

you're right, simply watching something doens't take away any rights, but it condones the act of taking away someone's rights. It IS harful because it is the reason that kids are being harmed. Posessing child porn is making it easier for the makers to commit the crime. It puts money in their pockets, it gives them the resources to film children being raped and distribute it. You talk as if the pedophiles watching these tapes are watching actors, as if they are enjoying something that is sick and twisted but in reality, no one got hurt. Those kids aren't actors, and this is one of the very VERY few situations in life that is black and white. Those kids would not be hurt if there wasn't a reason to do it. The people who buy those tapes are giving the men raping them a reason to do it. We're not discussing the intricacies of guilt or harm in a legal textbook, we're discussing someone who is facilitating the rape of a child. It's wrong, it IS harmful though not by direct hand. Wheather directly or indirectly, people who make and people who WATCH child porn are all doing harm.

i dont really think its about the psyche of the child, but more about the adult,....

Surely it all boils down to the psyche of the child because that's the person that anti-pedophililia laws are there to protect. *If* a child is emotionally mature enough to not need the protection of such laws then as long as the adult has ensured that this is so before engaging in any activity, why is there an issue? The area that jibber is discussing regarding the circulation of paedophillic media is very black and white. The issue of a person to person relationship is not always so.

Because you can't start making exceptions or else people will start to think it is generally alright.

exept by supporting people who distribute child porn you are supporting those who raped the child

So that's why they don't let us play with the good toys.

This is bad how? You create a job market and strengthen the economy all without hurting someone. The people hurting the children should be punished, but the consumer and the market shouldn't be punished as they didn't actually do anything wrong. It'd be like penalizing someone because they laughed at a car wreck, or for downloading footage of someone being killed.

I agree they're not actors and that what is being done to them is very, very bad. To be honest it is probably one of the most disgusting examples of human depravity, and it churns my stomach just thinking about the sick bastards comitting such acts. However, I still stand by the idea that nobody should be punished for feeling enjoyment, or for owning something that brings said enjoyment as long as they themselves don't impede the rights and freedoms of others, and I'll be damned if watching a video in the privacy of my own home is damaging to anyone.

What if their reason isn't because its marketable, but rather the marketability is just an aside?

And this seems to be the notion we're not agreeing on.

Hitmen and assassins, should it be legal to give them money to kill someone?

it is bad because they are supporting it and encouraging those who make it, so yes, it does hurt people

yet you feel it's ok to support and encourage such acts?

Yes.

Yes, free market and free speech in the case where the encouragement is verbal.

Yet this is supporting and encouraging murder. At least you're consistent I guess but I must disagree with your simplistic reasoning regarding passive responsibility.

No, we're not agreeing on that notion, mostly because you seem to be incapable of comprehending cause and effect in this situation. Pedophiles buying the videos put money into the pockets of those doing the crime. I've said all I can say on this issue, because we are both repeating ourselved. The fact remains that possessing child porn in not an isolated incident. It does not start and end with the videotape that was bought or downloaded. It started with a child being raped for the purpose of selling the video footage to pedophiles. It then transfered to the person who buys that videotape, which brings it back to the person who commited the rape by giving them more money, and more resources. There is a DIRECT connection from the person raping the child in the video, to the person buying the video, and BACK to the person who raped the child initially. Your problem is that you are viewing the possession of the video as an isolated incident, which it IN NO WAY IS. you're being obtuse, you're disregarding a huge portion of the process, and you're looking at a harmful and disgusting practice (and yes, i AM talking about posessing child porn) as a something entirely detached from the act which is going on in the video, which is not only incredibly narrow-minded, it's offensive. As of now i'm done with this issue. I'm done speaking to someone who refuses to look at the situation for what it is instead of how it appears by their stilted legal definitions. And i'm done debating with someone who really has no idea what they're talking about, because they've never seen first hand children who are growing up with emotional and physical scars after being sold as a sex slave and raped and abused for years for the benefit of the pedophiles back in north america who are simply "getting enjoyment."

oh, and just so I won't have to do this later, and so it's clear where my arguments are coming from, take a good look at this photo. That's me in the photo in the orphanage in Phnom Penh, Cambodia I spent two months working in. The girl I have my arm around is named Chantrea. She was 13 when this photo was taken, and two years before then she had been resuced from a brothel. Her parents had died of AIDS, and she was kidnapped from the street she was living on and put to work as a sex slave when she was 9 years old. She spent two years being raped for the pleasure of those pedophiles you are so adamantly defending. And yes, I know that videotapes were being made from that brothel because I read the report from the organization that shut down that brothel. Two more of my girls had suffered similar abuse.

That's nice that your world is so neatly defined and packaged. But some of us live in the real world and have actually seen the real effects of those videotapes.

as an afterthought, I would tell you exactly what I think of you and your ideas, but I don't think it's neccesary. I think this photo and my reasons for thinking the way I do do far more to describe your morals and values than words ever could.

so if I rape a kid I'm evil, but if I pay someone to rape a kid and film it for me to wack off to later then I'm totaly inocent?

I actually lolled at this sentence, enough to actually snort even.

I don't even understand how you can assume what my morals are based on anything posted in this thread.

Paying someone for a service isn't intrusive of anyone's freedoms therefore you paying someone to rape someone else isn't bad. Wacking it isn't a bad thing either. However, filming someone and making a profit off them without their consent is potentially fiscally damaging. You'd need the child to consent to the filming of the rape to make this work out.

depends what that service is, in the case of rape, yes it is
so wouldn't that make all child porn wrong? children can't legaly consent

Owning a copy of it, or watching it, or selling it =/= business with the child in question.

no but the trade in child porn does hurt children, which is why it is illegal

the people who have child porn are not as guilty as those who actuly made it, but they still share some responcibility

child molestation gives kids self esteem boosts!