Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
Ugh. You people should really get your terms straight.
Someone who digs children, i.e. preteens, is a paedophile, whereas someone who digs teens is... a normal man. Men have had sex with 14 year old teens for the past 100000000 years, and have been attracted to them for just as long. Now, over the past few hundred years it has been outlawed. So does that mean men are suddenly wired differently, not digging chicks under 18 anymore? I think not.
Now, porn with chicks under 18 is illegal, so instead we make porn with chicks that are over 18 but look younger, like Tawnee Stone. Now, does that encourage paedophilia? No, it simply caters to a very normal and healthy desire - the desire for young and attractive chicks.
|
I was about to say, it's a big jump from an 18 year old to a 12 year old or a 12 month old.
Molesting a 17 year old girl is statutory rape, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is an interest in pre-teens. There is a difference between raping a defenseless 8 year old and and having sex with a 17 year old. The 17 year old is judged under the law to be not competent to decide to have sex. The law has to draw a line somewhere in the code, and that line is at 18. Of course, just as there are 25 year olds who really aren't in fact competent to decide when to have sex, there probably are some pretty sharp 15 and 16 year olds who are, but the law has to draw a line and that line is at 18. At least, that makes it easy for everyone involved. Otherwise, the courts would be involved in competency hearings all the time, and the courts are overburdened already.
The interest in "teens," I think, has for many to do with beauty and a love of perfection. Basically, I don't think a girl will ever be as flawless as she is in the general 18-22 or so age range. After this, things start to show signs of aging, they sag, stretch, wrinkle, etc. I'm not saying a 30 year old woman can't be beautiful. Actually, she can be fabulously beautiful, but her beauty is generally not based on her flawlessness.
The cynic will say that an interest in teens has to do with their naivete, which is "a power thing." Sure, for some guys. But I work with mostly sub-20 year olds, and I can tell you that a lot of them are college girls and are not dummies. I know a lot of other guys work with teens from the dregs of society, but that is not always the case. Four of the girls I've worked with are Reed College students, which means they are VERY smart girls. Probably near or at genius level. If I'm taking advantage of anything, it's their rebelliousness, not their naivete. However, if you remember your own teen years, you'll know that at 18, you didn't want people making your decisions for you, and so I don't. There are certainly much more predatory people (and photographers) around than me: I don't try to have sex with them, and I let them know who the bad guys are as much as I can. After that, they get to make their own decisions.
Of course, there are probably guys whose interest in teens IS not so pure. But, what can we do about that? Do TV shows about burglars promote murder? (Remember: the question wasn't whether teen porn promotes an interest in more teen porn, but whether it promotes an interest in something much worse: illegal child porn, which is why the analogy I chose was burglary>murder.)
Well, I'm a believer in human freedom and responsibility. I don't think people are sheep or automatons. Whatever someone does is something he decides to do on his own. And if he makes a bad choice, HE and not someone else is responsible for that choice.
If I open up a stand to sell hookahs, I'm selling hookahs. No one has a gun to their head to USE a hookah, and if they bought the hookah for that purpose, it was on their mind before I sold it to them right?
Why is it that people take leave of their senses whenever the topic is CP or has CP implications?
Be careful! As Bill Maher has said, "When they come to take your rights away, they'll do so in the name of protecting the children."