altus Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 My interest in it is I think its wrong. Do you think its right ? Do you want to see 16 year old girls rolling about with old, fat, sweaty pedo's ? I have no interest in watching 16 year old women with fat sweaty old men or 16 year old men with fat sweaty old women. As both parties are over the age of consent, by law there wouldn't be any pedophilia involved. And you still haven't answered the question I asked. Here it is again: Do you think it is inconsistent to allow people to have sex at 16 but not look at porn at that age? Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted May 1, 2010 Author Share Posted May 1, 2010 I have no interest in watching 16 year old women with fat sweaty old men or 16 year old men with fat sweaty old women. As both parties are over the age of consent, by law there wouldn't be any pedophilia involved. And you still haven't answered the question I asked. Here it is again: Do you think it is inconsistent to allow people to have sex at 16 but not look at porn at that age? Try again. How many posts are you going to put on if I dont answer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 How many posts are you going to put on if I dont answer ? Just this one. I think that you do consider it is inconsistent but don't want to admit it. Other people will draw their own conclusions from your reluctance to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted May 1, 2010 Author Share Posted May 1, 2010 Just this one. I think that you do consider it is inconsistent but don't want to admit it. Other people will draw their own conclusions from your reluctance to answer. Ok then. your question: Do you think it is inconsistent to allow people to have sex at 16 but not look at porn at that age? Yes I do. But quite what I think has to do with you or anyone else for that matter I dont know Though what that has to do with the thread I dont know. the thread is about 16 year olds appearing in porn films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Ok then. your question: Do you think it is inconsistent to allow people to have sex at 16 but not look at porn at that age? Yes I do. But quite what I think has to do with you or anyone else for that matter I dont know Though what that has to do with the thread I dont know. the thread is about 16 year olds appearing in porn films. The thread title is questioning whether a claim that the Lib Dems support 16 year olds being porn film stars is true. I doubt anyone appearing in a porn film, but not having sex in it, would be considered the film's star. The BBC article only mentions viewing and the Independent article mentions appearing in - which is ambiguous. So I think my question was still on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 2, 2010 Share Posted May 2, 2010 I think we established some pages ago that the current position is woefully inconsistent. If you're old enough to be having sex, you're old enough to be filmed having sex; and if you are not, you are not. The question we ought to be asking is, how old is old enough - for either activity? A related question I'd like to ask is - does the admission of adulthood implicit in allowing people to have sex, mean they should receive the vote at the same age? - Or, vice versa, if someone's deemed too immature to vote are they also too immature to be having sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 2, 2010 Share Posted May 2, 2010 Could well lead to organised pedophiles grooming 15 year olds to appear in their films on their 16th birthday A little too seedy for me. Only if misuse the word paedophile. And why should the ages 15 and 16 be any different to 17 and 18, or any other boundary age for appearing in pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 2, 2010 Share Posted May 2, 2010 My interest in it is I think its wrong. Do you think its right ? Do you want to see 16 year old girls rolling about with old, fat, sweaty pedo's ? Do you want to see 18 year old girls doing the same? Is it just the seeing that matters, since the 16 year old can already be taking part in the activity, they just can't be filmed a the moment. How do you reconcile that it's okay for 16 year olds (of both sexes) to have sex (with anyone) at that age, but that filming it is illegal? Not just for professional porn, the 16 year old themselves would become a sex criminal for filming themselves on a mobile phone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorphanger Posted May 2, 2010 Share Posted May 2, 2010 No smoke without fire it's my guess this policy is not something made up to get at the Lib Dems it actually is their policy. The best way to find out and totally confirm it is ring you local lib dem MP and ask the question is it true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted May 2, 2010 Author Share Posted May 2, 2010 Only if misuse the word paedophile. And why should the ages 15 and 16 be any different to 17 and 18, or any other boundary age for appearing in pornography. You have lost me on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.