jtur -- what the HELL?

[madmonk28]

I’ve noticed over the years that the SD has a very pro-masturbation tilt. Someone will always post to defend spank bank content.

[iiandyiiii]

@madmonk28

I’ve noticed over the years that the SD has a very pro-masturbation tilt. Someone will always post to defend spank bank content.

Whatever the motive, it’s disappointing. I doubt anyone would be hesitant to condemn secretly going through a co-worker’s phone for lurid pictures, or hiding a camera in a bathroom. Watching non-consensual sex on video is no different – it’s violating someone’s consent.

[madmonk28]

Oh, I’m not defending it, I’m just saying that the Dope skews toward lonely, sexually frustrated masturbaters and that includes aficionados of child porn apparently.

[DCnDC]

@begbert2

His argument that video of a 17 year old who wasn’t below the age of consent in her area should be legal perhaps deserves a little more scrutiny. I mean, on the face of it it’s not entirely stupid - no crimes were committed in the making of it after all.

Except for the part where the filming of it is very much a crime.

[Czarcasm]

@madmonk28

Oh, I’m not defending it, I’m just saying that the Dope skews toward lonely, sexually frustrated masturbaters and that includes aficionados of child porn apparently.

1. That’s some mighty bizarre profiling you’ve done there. What the fuck threads are you perusing?
2. Nice job of linking an act that almost everyone does to such a reprehensible thing as child molestation. :rolleyes:

[begbert2]

@DCnDC

Except for the part where the filming of it is very much a crime.

I believe that he was alleging there were areas where the age of consent is lower, and that in those areas the act and filming thereof is therefore not a crime. Now, I personally don’t really know if such places exist, but if they did, they would throw another wrinkle into situation. Albeit one that may not make a practical difference if your child porn laws aren’t concerned about the provenance of the video - which I doubt they are.

And I feel I should point that in my first post I was specifically trying to blow a hole in the sketchy “no payment means you’re not motivating the providers” argument. Regarding consent, I don’t care how old they are, if they haven’t or can’t have provided consent then recording them is a crime - whether they’re a child, insensate, unaware, or whatever. And if recording someone was a crime, then viewing them is, well, perhaps not a crime per say (except for child porn, the owning or viewing of which is specifically stated as itself a crime) but it’s certainly in damn poor taste.

[madsircool]

If we look at jturs complete body (of work only thank god), I think we can assume he isca troll.

[Guinastasia]

@BigT

I don’t agree with that. It takes the concept too far, into woo territory to me. Acquiring the stuff is wrong, as it makes people want to produce more of it. Putting it out there is wrong because it can get back to the child, and because it makes it harder to trace. And actually making it is absolutely vile and one reason I can’t decide about the death penalty. But the actual viewing part doesn’t do anything.

And, please, for the love of God, don’t take that out of context and think I’m defending child porn or people viewing it. Even thinking about it is disgusting. Thinking that people who view it could even possibly think they actually like children is disgusting.

But, to me, the consent issue is that you are supporting the guy who raped the kid, making yourself part of the act. You’re a rape enabler.

How do you think the kids in those pictures and videos feel about someone viewing it? That someone is watching them being abused? You honestly think “that doesn’t do anything?” That’s sick.

[Superdude]

@Slash1972

How often do you get a chance to say that?

It’s why they won’t let him operate the drive-thru window headset anymore

[bobkitty]

@begbert2

His argument that video of a 17 year old who wasn’t below the age of consent in her area should be legal perhaps deserves a little more scrutiny. I mean, on the face of it it’s not entirely stupid - no crimes were committed in the making of it after all. Hitching that argument up to the wagon of the sentence you quoted REALLY doesn’t help matters though.

Chris “Birdman” Anderson came thisclose to being arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography due to receiving (and allegedly posting) naked photos of a 17 year old. He had sex with the girl, but that was perfectly legal. Had he not been the victim of a completely bizarre double-catfish internet hoax, he’d likely still be in jail.

[nightshadea]

to me what it boils down to is a “if there of the legal age of consent how can it be child porn?” argument

[E-DUB]

As I recall the original question came up in a context of someone seeing stuff on another person’s computer. Not knowing who might have had access to it, I would say that it is qualitatively different, though not in the eyes of the law, for a 17 year old male to be looking at porn involving a 17 year old female than for us older guys to be doing so.