Nocilol

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

how many people are harmed from being allowed to have sex after 18 when they aren't mature enough, and how many are harmed from being disallowed when they are mature enough?

Well, since I doubt anyone is advocating RAISING the legal age to above eighteen, I doubt anyone older than that are getting hurt, and I sincerely doubt there are many people under eighteen who have the rational and mature judgment required to subject themselves to porn at the request of someone older.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

and I sincerely doubt there are many people under eighteen who have the rational and mature judgment required to subject themselves to porn at the request of someone older.

Would you also therefore argue that there are "many" people under eighteen who also lack the rational and mature judgement to have sex? I'd say having sex with someone requires more rational and mature thought than posing nude for photos, or even being videoed masturbating both of which are thriving porn markets.

Not all porn needs to involve an older person having sex with a younger person, so I don't know that I could agree that "many" people (which implies if not a majority, a very large minority) under 18 somehow lack the mental capacities to make that decision.

[GuidoHunter]

I made my post under the assumption that the porn in question was someone older videotaping two or more younger people having sex.

And while I do think many people under eighteen lack the mature judgment to have sex, I think it takes far less thought to do something in the privacy of your own bedroom than it does to perform that act for people around the world.

To me, it's a matter of not fully understanding the far-reaching implications of doing porn, and that doesn't matter if they are having hardcore sex or just posing nude for a picture.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

So it's a sort of a "What does this say about you as a person, to have people all over the world watch you engaged in sexual acts" kind of standpoint? That people don't realise the effect that such a thing could have on them viz the reactions of people around them if they produce something that sees widespread viewing?

[AOL_blows911]

Just another point to toss out: What do all of you specificaly consider "Child porn"? The by-the-books definition of underage sex (as in anyone less than 18), or maybe when the people involved are technicaly "Kids", as in before they are teens (12 and under). Do you measure it by maturity? If so, do you count it by mental (whether or not they understand the implications and are smart about birth controle, if they both love eachother, etc.), or by physical maturity (as in, before puberty = child, and when puberty begins they are no longer a child).

I, personaly, define it by mental and physical maturity. If two 17 year olds have sex together, even though they could be less than a week from turning 18, I don't consider that child pornography.
1) Theyre practically adults, and they are definatly NOT children. They're underage, but it's almost ridiculous to call a 17 year old a child.
2) If they both are smart about it and love eachother, where's the harm? I mean sure, one could have an STD, but there are ways to get tested for that, and there are so many ways of birth controle that the chances of her getting pregnant (if they do it right, of course) are very low.

That's what I think, anyway. Just thought I'd throw that point out there, because determining if Lolicon should be illegal because it depics CP is directly tied to your definition of CP.

[ToshX]

I think it's a little ridiculous to call an 18 year old an adult, but that's just me.

Regardless, I think more crimes are going to be committed in ways that REALLY harm people more(molestation, rape) if stuff like CP is banned. I mean yeah, it may encourage some people, but I think it could keep a lot more people doing it the legal way.

I remember Aperson said in another thread that when alcohol was outlawed, everyone still did it, it just caused people to commit more dangerous crimes to get it. It didn't really solve anything, and people finally realized that making it legal would solve as many of the problems as possible.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

and I sincerely doubt there are many people under eighteen who have the rational and mature judgment required to subject themselves to porn at the request of someone older.

What's the basis of this doubt?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Would you also therefore argue that there are "many" people under eighteen who also lack the rational and mature judgement to have sex?

"I don't know"

Not all porn needs to involve an older person having sex with a younger person, so I don't know that I could agree that "many" people (which implies if not a majority, a very large minority) under 18 somehow lack the mental capacities to make that decision.

How do you figure?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

"I don't know"

Good to know, but I was asking Guido, who made the statement in the first place *grin*

How do you figure?

Well, once again, directed at Guido, from his comment that many people under 18 don't have the capacites to understand the consequences of "making porn at the request of someone older" which implied to me that he figured there was some "I'm older and more intelligent" style trickery and misleading information being presented to those under 18.

I was only pointing out that he seemed okay with the idea that two 16 year olds were capable of deciding to have sex, and that a 35 year old was capable of "tricking" a 16 year old into making porn, but that two 16 year olds were not capable of deciding, all on their own, to make porn.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

What's the basis of this doubt?

Personal experience with kids.

@devonin: If you want to make the argument to lower the legal age to sixteen, be my guest. I'll still argue against you for the reasons I've stated, but you'll have a much better ground to stand on.

But I'm certain that Tosh is talking about young children doing porn, like twelve year olds. That's all I've been considering this whole time. All of my points so far have been with young children in mind. By extension, all of that applies to sixteen year olds, too, but I'm not interested in arguing that with you.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ToshX]

I'm actually considering CP to be people of all ages under 18. Remember when Arch0wl recorded himself masturbating and he was like 16? Well yeah, I remember someone brought this up in another thread, but having that video means owning child porn, even if you know the person and they are legal in some places.

[Kilgamayan]

Tosh, you remind me of this guy:

Originally Posted by Steroid

So here's my take, put bluntly: I think it's worth it to have children raped to have the free communication of sexual material.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by ToshX

I'm actually considering CP to be people of all ages under 18. Remember when Arch0wl recorded himself masturbating and he was like 16? Well yeah, I remember someone brought this up in another thread, but having that video means owning child porn, even if you know the person and they are legal in some places.

By the same application of the law, if ones parents ever took a picture of you as an infant in the bathtub, or as a little kid running around without your diaper on, they are technically in possession of child porn.

There was actually a case not too long ago where a (i think she was 15? 16?) girl was charged with possession of child pornography for having nude photos of -herself-

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Personal experience with kids.

Your experience is limited though. Even if you worked in a field that involved constant interaction with children you still wouldn't know everything about them. There's too much variance between individuals for you to make blanket statements based on a few random small samples.

[sgkoneko]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

Should it be legal/illegal? Is it pedophilia? Is there anything inherently wrong with it? I'm fairly neutral on the subject but am curious to hear what everyone else thinks on the matter.


If you are unfamiliar with what it is... here is a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

Well anyone who wants to have sex with a drawing is pretty messed up to begin with.

Now on the subject of pedofilia. Well, if they are under the age of consent it shouldn't be done. Some people naturally have a really disturbing attraction to children, but they can't help it. Laws help make sure they keep away, so not much else can be done on the subject.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Your experience is limited though. Even if you worked in a field that involved constant interaction with children you still wouldn't know everything about them. There's too much variance between individuals for you to make blanket statements based on a few random small samples.

You asked for my justification, and that's it. As far as I'm concerned, I've got plenty of experience on which to found my beliefs. Recall that I'm not a congressman.

(For what it's worth, I have had lots of work experience with kids of all ages. I understand that that doesn't change your point at all; it's just FYI.)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Maid]

Originally Posted by sgkoneko

Well anyone who wants to have sex with a drawing is pretty messed up to begin with.

Who said they do? People get off/aroused to drawings, not necessarily have sex with them(not like they could /rolls eyes). I'd bet you'd get aroused by at least one example of so called drawing, simple physical response, doesn't matter if it is a photo of real being or a drawing as long as it fits your body's image of what would get you off. Not it is entirely up to you to follow up or not, but that would be simple programming received from all so correct sheep mentality, and could always be disputed someplace else.

So I guess that would also make you pretty messed up.

Welcome to our messed up* world. Guess what! it's been that way all along.

[OnixRose]

Originally Posted by Maid

Who said they do? People get off/aroused to drawings, not necessarily have sex with them(not like they could /rolls eyes). I'd bet you'd get aroused by at least one example of so called drawing, simple physical response, doesn't matter if it is a photo of real being or a drawing as long as it fits your body's image of what would get you off. Not it is entirely up to you to follow up or not, but that would be simple programming received from all so correct sheep mentality, and could always be disputed someplace else.

So I guess that would also make you pretty messed up.

Welcome to our messed up* world. Guess what! it's been that way all along.

great point.

[Kilgamayan]

GREAT CONTRIBUTION!

[Shashakiro]

I'm totally with Guido on real CP (for <16, anyway). Kids are just not mature enough to forsee the long-term consequences of CP when they're that young. I know I was absolutely terrible at seeing long-term consequences of anything before 16, and I've always considered myself to be fairly mature for my age, dating back to when I was 13. Engaging any kind of CP can be a life-ruining choice, and no child should ever legally be able to make a life-runing choice. Period.

Oh, and to address one of devonin's points: To my knowledge, I have never seen real CP. By "to my knowledge", I mean that maybe I've seen 16-17, but if I did I had no idea they were that age.

Lastly: A picture of a naked 3-year old in a bathtub is not pornography at all. A picture is only pornographic if it's somehow sexual, which I don't think anyone can argue that a 3-year old in a bathtub is.