Originally Posted by Fal (Post 468932)

If I'm not mistaken in America is it classed as a paedophilia related crime to be in possession of pornography in which an 18+ parades themselves as being beneath the age of consent?

Rach, I think you need to slow down and read what the Unfan is saying more thoroughly. He's not saying he would rape a 7 year old child, he's talking about the differences caused by cultural and social upbringing.

Another example of the difference in maturity caused by society is your reference to 14 being a silly age of consent. Being 14 isn't what makes you a dizzy moron, the fact that society caters to the idea that a 14 year old SHOULD be a dizzy moron is. Only a few hundred years, 14 year olds were responsible for themselves and considered eligible for marriage. Look at Romeo and Juliet; the character of Juliet was a 13 year old. She's portrayed as a determined person who well knows their own mind. Nobody bats an eyelash to the idea that a 13 year old should be getting mixed up in all the sort of crap she gets up to because at the time children were raised in such a way that by the time they were 13 they could handle themselves.

I do however take contention with the suggestion that paying for paedophillic pornography is a victimless crime. Though simple possession is a different matter, to pay for it is passively encouraging the crime by supporting the people who commit them.

Originally Posted by jibber (Post 468951)

I REALLY hope you're playing devil's advocate here and that you're not actually this obtuse, this unfeeling, and most of all, this much of a f*cking idiot. You don't believe that it is wrong to own child porn, yet you do not condone the making of child porn. do you not understand the simple concept of supply and demand? Do you think that if there weren't perverts out there who want to jack off to a young girl getting brutally raped (often after being sold into slavery) people would be making those videos? And your reference to watching people get killed in movies is ridiculous and completely off topic. like someone else suggested, none of the actors in those movies actually died. The girls and boys in those child porn videos are being physically and emotionally abused. They are being brutally raped, they have very often been kidnapped from their homes and families and sold like an object for the sole use of gratifying the sick and twisted vision of those pedophiles that you seem to sympathize with so much. You moan about the poor misunderstood pedophilles who have never hurt a child themselves, only watched them get beaten and abused on their tvs or computer screens. It's the same as if they had been standing in the room and egging it on. I think you need to take a hard look at your values and morality. Better yet, go to a country like india, thailand, cambodia, where girls younger than 6 years old are sold as sex slaves and raped day in and day out, often in front of a camera for those videos you dont think are harmful. Why not have a conversation with those kids after the fact, why not visit an orphanage full of girls who are now on a death sentence after contracting HIV in a brothel after being kidnapped off the street and forced into slavery. Have a young daughter? sister? niece? hell younger brother, nefew, son? Think about how you would feel if you knew they had been raped, tortured, abused in front of a video camera, and then some dirty old man was jacking off to the suffering of that child. Oh that's right, if it doesn't affect you personally you can't see anything wrong with it.

by the way, your post made me physically sick to my stomach.

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 468952)

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?

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 468948)

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to **** horses, there's still plenty of prons of people doing it...

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 468961)

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?

Originally Posted by jibber (Post 468951)

Words

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 468974)

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.

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 468971)

You'll live.

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 468974)

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.