Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Sat 20/04/24 08:12:31 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 18062.4.1

Subject: Re: Re: All of this blather about underaged models

Date: Tue 06/09/05 00:52:57 GMT

Name: G.O.P.

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

Arousal is taking advantage of someone? Our thoughts can take advantage of someone? If we see a pretty young woman somewhere, are we supposed to ask her for I.D. because we want to think about her "in a sexual way" and need to know if the is 18 before allowing those thoughts to enter our mind? I am doing what Rush Limbaugh likes to do, "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".

In reply to Message (18062.4)

Re: All of this blather about underaged models

By Anonymous - Mon 05/09/05 19:00:32 GMT

Website:

Here's why I disagree with Sopping.

While all underage girls are "off limits," the reasons are different.

Anyone aroused by a pre-pubescent girl is by definition a paedophile.

This is not the case for arousal by, say, a physically mature fifteen-year-old.

But the fifteen-year-old is still off limits.

Why?

Because as a minor she lacks the mental maturity to consent. This is why sex with a minor is called statutory rape: "rape" because legally, she can't consent.

If an adult does something in public, she or he is presumed to consent to others seeing her. If she posts a picture on the internet, it's in the public domain. She may not have done so intending people to be aroused by it, but she is old enough that she ought to know that she's taking that chance.

Arousal by a physically mature 15 year old is not paedophelia; it is taking advantage of a person who is incapable of consent.

We all know what this forum is for, and it's not for casual observation of interesting sights.

In reply to Message (18062)

All of this blather about underaged models

By Sopping - katakai1@verizon.net Mon 05/09/05 04:29:24 GMT

Website:

I don't get it.

I am not talking about national laws here, just common sense. It is OK to take and publish a picture of an infant, a young child, a lovely young woman---of ANY age...As long as she is, playing in the park, petting a small dog, sucking on an ice-cream bar, or sitting on a fence wearing a bikini etc etc. - whatever. No problem, no porn, no nothing.No cries of alarm!

Why can said young lady be innocently wading in a lake? Is it OK for her to be standing by the lake then? Or possibly just getting her feet wet? At what point does she wade to sufficient depth that the button of the "anti-porn police" is pushed?

There is not the slightest element of porn in these pictures.You know it, I know it, we all know it.

But, on this site, we have postings by slobbering voyeurs of "Busty,Sexy teen-models" and similar porn-come-ons all the time. Big time! If I were to waste my time on these sites, I am sure I could identify some underage bimbos. But why bother.

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)