Topic: Link to real child pornography
Anonymous A started this topic 1.9 years (2008-04-21 20:19:?? UTC) ago (#1,326):
http://404chan.genericus.org/b/Do
NOT go there unless you are brave and want to see
actual CP! Don't blame me afterwards when you feel bad! Depending on your (bad) luck, security measures and the country you live in, you could actually go to jail for just
looking at them.
I'm personally disgusted by most of those pictures, although I admit that I find a few of them hot (those that show girls who are a little bit older)… :-(
Internal advertisement: This could have been your text ad, or a 468x60 px graphical banner. Why isn't it?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 21:06:?? UTC) ago, 47 minutes later (#5,345):
k so u will go to jail u say but u go there neways?
dumb/shit?
Anonymous B double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 21:10:?? UTC) ago, 5 minutes later, 51 minutes past creation (#5,346):
and you are sick
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 21:25:?? UTC) ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour past creation (#5,347):
It's the same old shit anyway..
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 21:55:?? UTC) ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#5,355):
where the hell is that site hosted at and why isn't it down yet?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 22:22:?? UTC) ago, 27 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#5,358):
Linking to it is just as bad as hosting it, douchebag.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 22:29:?? UTC) ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#5,362):
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 23:09:?? UTC) ago, 40 minutes later, 3 hours past creation (#5,367):
your a freak, i can believe this stuff is real. fuck you faggot
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-21 23:48:?? UTC) ago, 39 minutes later, 3 hours past creation (#5,380):
v&
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 00:55:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours past creation (#5,386):
That's hot. However, as i was watching, my mom walking in my room. Shit.
To turn this topic into something constructive.. Why is CP illegal? It's not even that arousing. It's only arousing because it's illegal. Fail logic.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 02:01:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours past creation (#5,399):
@previousSome like it because it's illegal, some because it's children, some like the abuse aspect of it.
CP is illegal because mass media has spent years discrediting and lying about it. It's that simple. If we dispel the myths (such as economic funding of abuse, kidnapped children necessarily suffering in basements, CP inspiring to pedophilia or abuse, etc.) no real logical arguments remain to support the ban other than simple persecution of pedophiles. Other bans soon followed in some countries, declaring SM porn illegal in the same way. You've got a select few media owners who want everyone on the planet to jerk off to the same thing that he/she jerks off to, and he/she has the ignorant stupid masses for backup.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 03:47:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours past creation (#5,417):
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html"Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year."
To everyone who clicked that link above: in after fail, enjoy your b& and v&.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 03:52:?? UTC) ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#5,419):
@previousExcept the fake links don't actually show real CP, moron. This link does. As such, it's legitimate, and not an FBI trap. Anybody intelligent uses TOR when clicking a sensitive link anyway.
Anonymous J replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 03:53:?? UTC) ago, 50 seconds later, 8 hours past creation (#5,420):
404chan.genericus.org 14400 IN A 208.113.242.158
NetRange: 208.113.128.0 - 208.113.255.255
CIDR: 208.113.128.0/17
NetName: DREAMHOST-BLK6
NetHandle: NET-208-113-128-0-1
Parent: NET-208-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.DREAMHOST.COM
NameServer: NS2.DREAMHOST.COM
NameServer: NS3.DREAMHOST.COM
OrgName: New Dream Network, LLC
OrgID: NDN
Address: 417 Associated Rd
Address: PMB #257
City: Brea
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 92821
We all know that the pigs willingly break the law, to uphold the law, but for those who care to…
OrgAbuseName: DreamHost Abuse Team
OrgAbusePhone: +1-714-706-4182
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@dreamhost.com
Anonymous J double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 03:56:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#5,421):
@5,419> Except the fake links don't actually show real CP, moron.Links to real CP produce cache files which may be used as evidence. My guess, far too many busts resulted in no CP found on the machine — however this method guarantees at least
their CP will be found.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 04:14:?? UTC) ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#5,422):
Oh, and here's another freebie — just to further piss off the pigs who are following this thread…
http://anonymouse.org/ Located outside the USA (in Darmstadt Germany) this site will completely remove your IP record from the web transaction — in fact, they pull the data feed first to their server, then send it to you with plenty of ads inserted! If you're going to click that link, at least make it hard for the pigs to implement their little honeypot scam!
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 04:15:?? UTC) ago, 29 seconds later, 8 hours past creation (#5,423):
@5,421Well, my real IP is hidden, TOR has never failed me before. And honestly, the government doesn't even care about CP. They get a few people every year to parade them around and say "hey look how awesome we are and how we're protecting your kids".
Anonymous J replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 04:25:?? UTC) ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#5,427):
@previousCP is a gateway b& one which will usher in a whole raft of
other things which you can't do, see or read on the Internet without facing real criminal charges and real incarceration. We are quickly headed into fascism here in the USA (the land of the free — yeah, it says free… what a fucking joke).
Anonymous E replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 16:55:?? UTC) ago, 13 hours later, 21 hours past creation (#5,504):
@5,420From the looks of it, I just think it's a board that the staff forgot about.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 19:07:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours past creation (#5,519):
You are fucking retarded if you think the only reason CP is banned is because of censorship. I'm a pedo and even I don't buy it. CP has destroyed children's lives… and anyone who views CP is contributing to a market for the continued abuse of children. Goddamn, even if you think sex with a kid isn't in of itself harmful if it's consensual and loving, the moment a camera enters the room it stops being about love and starts being about exploitation. So please, pedos, fucking STOP being so selfish that you only care about your own libido. You do not have a natural born right to view CP.
Persecuting pedos is one thing… no harm no foul right? But I am extremely glad CP is illegal. There are other ways to get your rocks off (nonsexual pictures of children, erotic fiction, lolicon/shotacon, etc). Stop complaining that you can't get your rocks off in the precise manner you want, and start thinking just a little bit about the objects of your lust. Please??
Anonymous I replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 19:55:?? UTC) ago, 49 minutes later, 24 hours past creation (#5,522):
@previousPerhaps I wasn't clear: There is a difference between creating CP and viewing CP. I was talking about viewing CP. However creating CP has its valid points too.
First off, saying that viewing CP is contributing to abuse is like saying that vitnesses contribute to accidents or piracy contributes to the movie industry. It doesn't have to include paying for access to CP, or in any other way providing money for the creators.
Second off, no matter if the children would enjoy it or not, CP includes sexually mature 17 yos taking voluntary shots of themselves, and even 17 yos having cam sex with their boyfriends. These kids are not held in basements. They are only suffering from the ban, not the act. Other shots are taken by amateur sex-partners who don't really care about whether the CP is legal or not - no change in their lovelife there, and no funding or sponsoring required there either.
Third off, making CP illegal has resulted in even more abuse than before. It has opened up an underground market for creating and selling CP that was formerly free and much less expensive. This means more money to exploit children with, not less. It means less evidence circulation of any actual abuse, allowing it to continue, equalling more of it. It leaves pedophiles to seek relief elsewhere, like in actual abuse. There is a big difference between stopping depictions of abuse, and stopping the actual abuse. This ban just silences it by shoveling it under the rug.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 20:46:?? UTC) ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,533):
GTFO PEDOFAG
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 20:53:?? UTC) ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,539):
fuck… I clicked that earlier this afternoon.. but it was in a 4chan thread and it just said oldfag memes….
I closed it as soon as it loaded up a white screen anyway..
Australia fag here. never downloaded this shit/looked at it before. Do I re-format my PC now?
Also I use no proxy or protection as far as hiding my IP is concerned.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 22:20:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 1 day past creation (#5,578):
@previous> Also I use no proxy or protection as far as hiding my IP is concerned.In b4 b& and v&.
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 22:27:?? UTC) ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,579):
@previousThanks for the shitty reply which does nothing but spew out a worthless chain of memes.
But as another poster pointed out, most CP is free. There is no CP "market" (and if there is it's very small). When you view CP, chances are the subjects and the producers aren't even aware that it's being viewed. To say that viewing CP stimulates its production is like saying an artist's hentai being posted on a random imageboard stimulates that author to draw more. It doesn't, because he receives no compensation for drawing no matter how many people view it. It is the same with free CP. CP will produced whether it is viewed or not. In addition, there is no way to know whether the subjects in the pictures were consenting to the sexual activity and the recording or not. You don't know that it's "ruined their lives", because you don't know them. Yet you choose to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people you've had no contact with, which is the entire problem with the anti-pedophile sentiment in the world today.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 22:36:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,584):
i wouldn't worry about it. i imagine there would only be serious probs if you gave over credit card details (i.e. joining a members only website) as then there's a traceable route back to you which states in black and white what you were after
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 22:42:?? UTC) ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,585):
@5,522"First off, saying that viewing CP is contributing to abuse is like saying that vitnesses contribute to accidents or piracy contributes to the movie industry. It doesn't have to include paying for access to CP, or in any other way providing money for the creators."
Viewing CP may not directly increase demand for more production of it, but it does indirectly. Knowing that there are people out there who are into an idea causes more and more entrepreneurs to try to capitalize on it, regardless of whether or not it ends up being profitable.
"Third off, making CP illegal has resulted in even more abuse than before. It has opened up an underground market for creating and selling CP that was formerly free and much less expensive. This means more money to exploit children with, not less. It means less evidence circulation of any actual abuse, allowing it to continue, equalling more of it. It leaves pedophiles to seek relief elsewhere, like in actual abuse. There is a big difference between stopping depictions of abuse, and stopping the actual abuse. This ban just silences it by shoveling it under the rug."
Sadly, I agree with you on this.
I just want to say, though, having been sexually abused when I was 4 years old (and having been absolutely terrified during the act and after because I didn't know what what going on), it's devastating to know people get their kicks from this.
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 22:52:?? UTC) ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,586):
@previousOkay, you got sexually abused when you were 4 and didn't enjoy it. That doesn't color anyone else's experiences. You're biased because you can't see anything beyond what happened to you personally. In my opinion, 4 is too young, but I wouldn't force that idea on anybody else. Perhaps if he had been more open with you it would've been a better experience. There are positive and healthy childhood sex experiences though, don't let your own experience bias you. Some kids loved gym class, some hated it. People experience things in different ways.
The problem with the public perception of pedophilia is that the only story that's let through is the weepy victim story. We never hear about positive child-adult sexual experiences (except for in ancient Greek and Renaissance era texts, and the internet today) because the media refuses to let them through. People usually don't bother anyway, since they know this. And their own intelligence would be insulted if they said they enjoyed a childhood sexual experience because they'd get told that they were wrong, didn't know their own feelings, were actually traumatized, etc.
Anonymous P replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 22:56:?? UTC) ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,588):
@previouswtf am i reading here? any sexual activity between an adult and child is WRONG. let children enjoy their childhood, they've got their whole life to figure the sex stuff out
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 23:05:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,594):
@previousI disagree with you, but at least it's extremely evident you've put a lot of thought into your assertions. I was blown away by your capitalization of the word "WRONG" so much that I had to sit down and reevaluate all of my moral values. I applaud you, for most people just parrot what they see on TV without putting any introspection into it. Truly though you've formulated a well argued post that really examines the subject and "hits the nail on the head", as they say. For anybody who is too lazy to read this excellent post, let me summarize the explosion of logic that filled my screen:
A.) Sex with children is WRONG (all caps).
B.) Sex with children is WRONG because they've got their whole lives ahead of them.
C.) Because they've got their whole lives ahead of them, this implies that they are young.
D.) Children are young, that is why they are children.
E.) Thus we are led to conclude that sex with children is WRONG because they are children.
Why I think it is necessary to further extrapolate this amazing logic. Why teach children anything? They've got their whole lives to figure it out. We should just dump them on an island and see if they survive or not.
Anonymous Q replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 23:21:?? UTC) ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,600):
@5,586> Okay, you got sexually abused when you were 4 and didn't enjoy it. That doesn't color anyone else's experiences. You're biased because you can't see anything beyond what happened to you personally. Pardon me, but
biased? As in, my opinion on sexual abuse against children is not valid because it happened to me? I suppose I didn't clarify properly, but when I said it was devastating to know people got their kicks off of this, I was referring more to the younger children with whom it was forced upon, or who were convinced to do it. There are reasons we have laws against prosecuting minors in the same way we prosecute adults. It is because they often do not know what they are getting into. I'm not saying that I know at what age a child is capable of making decisions that (s)he is fully able to comprehend and know that it won't be regretted later, but I sure as hell wish nothing had happened to me. I wasn't ready. I was. Not. Ready. And I had no say in the matter.
> There are positive and healthy childhood sex experiences though, don't let your own experience bias you. Some kids loved gym class, some hated it. People experience things in different ways. I agree, there are some experiences that are positive and/or healthy, but are these the exception or the rule?
> The problem with the public perception of pedophilia is that the only story that's let through is the weepy victim story. We never hear about positive child-adult sexual experiences (except for in ancient Greek and Renaissance era texts, and the internet today) because the media refuses to let them through. People usually don't bother anyway, since they know this. And their own intelligence would be insulted if they said they enjoyed a childhood sexual experience because they'd get told that they were wrong, didn't know their own feelings, were actually traumatized, etc.Fair enough, but I still think this is often the exception and not the rule. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who were sexually abused and/or messed around with playmates. More often than not, they were upset by what had happened and wished it hadn't occured. I can't recall having heard of experiences with more mature individuals that were not deeply regretted; however, that's just my perspective.
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-22 23:30:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,603):
@previous> As in, my opinion on sexual abuse against children is not valid because it happened to me?Not invalid, but certainly biased. It's just important to consider that bias is all.
> I agree, there are some experiences that are positive and/or healthy, but are these the exception or the rule?I don't think any unbiased studies have been done on the matter. But whether it's the exception or not, why is it all illegal? If there's been even one case where a person under 18 willingly consented to sexual activity (and there have been many more than one), then the law needs to change. Homosexuals and other minorities are also the exception, but the law protects them.
> I have a number of friends and acquaintances who were sexually abused and/or messed around with playmates. More often than not, they were upset by what had happened and wished it hadn't occured. I, when I was younger, messed around with my cousins and we all turned out fine and our relationship was completely normal. When I was a teenager I had sexual activity with a younger cousin. She and I remained close as she entered puberty, until eventually life circumstances put us too far apart. I still talk to her sometimes though, and have never heard anything negative. Sometimes she brings it up, but usually in a teasing way.
But that's besides the point. Have you considered whether it is the act itself that harms children, or society's response to it? I think very often children are more harmed by having everyone tell them how traumatized they should be than by the act itself. If they're not properly informed, as in your case, then maybe not. But that's not how responsible pedophiles behave. Most pro-pedophile activist have developed pedophile ethics that stress communication with the child.
Anonymous Q replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 00:15:?? UTC) ago, 45 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,629):
@previous> I don't think any unbiased studies have been done on the matter. But whether it's the exception or not, why is it all illegal? If there's been even one case where a person under 18 willingly consented to sexual activity (and there have been many more than one), then the law needs to change. Homosexuals and other minorities are also the exception, but the law protects them.It's not a matter of whether or not there is consent. Rather, it is a matter of whether or not that child is fully capable of understanding the consequences of his/her choice. I agree, some teenagers are able to make that decision, but does that mean all of them are? Or that most of them are? I agree, the age level may be high, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an age limit at all. If you will recall, though, I said I didn't know at what age a child is able to make a decision pertaining to something as personal as one's sexuality, so I'm not by any means claiming that I know what the age limit should be changed to. But is it better to be safe by keeping the age limit high than sorry by lowering it? And does the wrong that is placed on those who are inhibited by the higher limit outweigh those who are protected by it (theoretically speaking… I know the black market will always find a way to circumvent laws, but humor me here)?
> Have you considered whether it is the act itself that harms children, or society's response to it? I think very often children are more harmed by having everyone tell them how traumatized they should be than by the act itself. If they're not properly informed, as in your case, then maybe not. But that's not how responsible pedophiles behave. Most pro-pedophile activist have developed pedophile ethics that stress communication with the child.I have been wondering this about my situation. I'm trying to answer as honestly as I can here, but you may still feel I'm biased. Regardless, there were some elements that were fine and I could have lived with. There were other parts, though that were terrifying at the time, and that I really wish I'd been able to decide if I wanted to do it on my own. That is my opinion with me removing as much bias as I can (that is, my feelings are more strongly influenced by what is acceptable in society, but if that is removed this is how
I feel about it). So some of it is society, and some of it is the act. It's very conceivable that many people feel how they do about their experiences because of what society dictates as acceptable, rather than how they individually feel on the matter. However, i don't think that is always the case. I think it is likely a combination of the two.
And while some pedophiles may be responsible in fully informing the child of what will happen, does that mean the child has the true capacity to understand the choice (s)he is making? I'm trying to think of a similar situation that doesn't grossly overstate the consequences, but it's a little difficult… Let's say you fully-explain to a child a scene you want him/her to watch in a movie. He/she says ok, then you press play, and a serious of images come up that frighten the child and he/she starts crying. You may have fully-explained the scene and what the child would see, and the child gave consent, but in the end, the situation ended up being not what he/she expected. So, with younger children, a full explanation may have been given, and consent may have been given, but what the child was consenting to was still not fully-understood, regardless of the adequate explanation. Are you going to take your six-year-old to see an R-rated film that you're pretty sure is going to (unnecessarily) scare your child just because he/she says, "yeah, ok" after you fully-explained what's going to happen?
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 01:33:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 1 day past creation (#5,675):
this shit is so stupid. also, at least in the US, u wont go to jail or even get a visit for opening the page
Anonymous I replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 02:19:?? UTC) ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,686):
@5,585"Viewing CP may not directly increase demand for more production of it, but it does indirectly. Knowing that there are people out there who are into an idea causes more and more entrepreneurs to try to capitalize on it, regardless of whether or not it ends up being profitable."
Pedophiles were pretty much born with "being into the idea", and people know this. The law used to be that only trying to PROFIT from CP was illegal, and I was fine with that. That should solve your problem with it too. It's the rest that I don't like.
"I just want to say, though, having been sexually abused when I was 4 years old (and having been absolutely terrified during the act and after because I didn't know what what going on), it's devastating to know people get their kicks from this."
It's a big difference between getting kicks from something, and liking to do something. I never chose what turns me on. I was devastated when I found out I liked watching CP. While I've met enough people who has had sex as children to know that underage sex isn't always pitch black tales, I couldn't possibly do what is depicted. It's like playing a violent computer game while being a pacifist in real life. It's watching a crime scene without wanting to actually do the crime. It's not evil. It's just fate.
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 02:41:?? UTC) ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,691):
@5,629> And while some pedophiles may be responsible in fully informing the child of what will happen, does that mean the child has the true capacity to understand the choice (s)he is making? I'm trying to think of a similar situation that doesn't grossly overstate the consequences, but it's a little difficult… Let's say you fully-explain to a child a scene you want him/her to watch in a movie. He/she says ok, then you press play, and a serious of images come up that frighten the child and he/she starts crying. You may have fully-explained the scene and what the child would see, and the child gave consent, but in the end, the situation ended up being not what he/she expected. So, with younger children, a full explanation may have been given, and consent may have been given, but what the child was consenting to was still not fully-understood, regardless of the adequate explanation.There's truth in that statement. Which is of course why it's important to stop if they tell you to, a principle that applies in all area of consent laws. I would have no problem if child/adult sex was governed by all laws concerning rape that apply to adult/adult sex. As for whether a child has the true capacity to understand, I think that depends on the child. There are people in their late twenties who aren't mature enough for sexual activity, girls at 12 who are, everyone develops differently. For the law to put an arbitrary limit upon it is silly. They should judge it on a case-by-case basis, using the same criteria they'd use in any other case.
Even as I say this though, I have my own biases. I personally wouldn't do anything sexual at all with somebody much younger than 8, and wouldn't do anything penetrative with anybody younger than 12. I know by society's standards that's not nearly considered conservative, but there are plenty nepiophiles who wouldn't like my opinion very much. I really have a hard time defending people who go as young as 0-4, because I can't really relate to attraction for children that young. But I've always thought that because I don't understand them it's all the more reason I should try not vilify them.
Therefore I've always seen the only fair way to judge sex in any form is with the same laws applying to all people. Which I suppose would only discount humans not old enough to say "yes" or "no" (which is a good thing). Of course I'm also a zoophile, so I wonder how that would apply to animals. In their case there are non-verbal cues that they are aroused… but that's another issue entirely.
Anyway, I just wanetd to end this post saying that I respect your ability to be level headed about a topic you have much personal interest in. People who don't have nearly as much invested in the subject are much more idiotic about it than you, which means you must possess a very reasonable mind. To be truthful, I was just going to write you off as an angry victim who wouldn't be able to understand true consent, but you're much smarter than that.
Anonymous Q replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 03:49:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 1 day past creation (#5,697):
@previousI think my primary difference from you in this discussion is over when a child is adequately able to give informed consent. Part of the "informed" bit of that is, in my opinion, being able to know how you might feel about it in the future, and I think most young children do not have that sort of foresight. And I agree with you; some 20-year-olds aren't ready for sexual activity and
maybe some 12-year-olds are and have the capacity to know what they're getting themselves into, but I just can't imagine that is often the case. Part of growing up is establishing your own values and morals, and that often applies to sexuality. It's very upsetting to me that many children don't even get to take the time to
truly understand who they want to become as people, and what they want to do or
not do with their bodies. I suppose, though, that this is where we part ways.
I still think it's better for the laws to be made with high limits on age rather than low, ensuring (again, theoretically) that those who are not able to understand these types of decisions fully are protected until they are a bit more capable.
Regardless I appreciate the compliment. I would have written you of as well, but you raised some fair points and good questions. We may not agree, but I at least have a great understanding of your position.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 04:15:?? UTC) ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,700):
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 05:57:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 1 day past creation (#5,718):
@5,522> First off, saying that viewing CP is contributing to abuse is like saying that witnesses contribute to accidents or piracy contributes to the movie industry.Uhh no it's not. Witnesses to accidents happen to view something that randomly happens, whether or not they want to; CP viewers actively search for the stuff. Would children continue to be abused if there was no CP? Almost certainly. But would CP producers stop making CP if there wasn't an audience for it? Of course! Now… is it realistic to think that demand for CP will die? Nope. This is of course because of people like you who will always search out CP no matter what, creating excuses along the way that nothing you do is directly harming a child or some shit.
EVEN ASSUMING YOU ARE CORRECT… what would happen when distribution of CP were to become legal? Hell, lets assume that the *sale* of CP was still banned, but free distribution becomes legal? Do you really think that the increase in sharing CP would *not* lead to more being made? There are definitely illegal ways to make money from CP even in the law's current form (otherwise there wouldn't be any news about CP rings being broken up:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=child+porn+ring&btnG=Search+News ).
> CP includes sexually mature 17 yos taking voluntary shots of themselves, and even 17 yos having cam sex with their boyfriends. These kids are not held in basements. They are only suffering from the ban, not the act. Other shots are taken by amateur sex-partners who don't really care about whether the CP is legal or not - no change in their lovelife there, and no funding or sponsoring required there either.I think kids getting arrested for distroing CP is bullshit too. But you and I both know this is not the issue at hand. Relaxing the law regarding 17 year olds sending pictures to their 17 year old boyfriends is one thing… an 8 year old sucking a cock completely another. Legalizing the former has little to do with legalizing the latter.
> It leaves pedophiles to seek relief elsewhere, like in actual abuse.I'm not
> Third off, making CP illegal has resulted in even more abuse than before.So we should make child abuse legal to protect children from child abuse. WHAT??? Murder is illegal, therefore murderers tend to keep their crimes secret, and serial murderers especially become free to continue murdering. Making murder legal has pushed it underground, allowing it to continue. Therefore we should legalize murder in order to protect people from murder.
You might think it a stretch for me to compare the two… but is it really so much of a stretch? What part of your argument even remotely makes sense? I mean in the real world, not the Bizzaro world many boy/girl love organizations live in
Anonymous O replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 06:26:?? UTC) ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,721):
@5,586> only story that's let through is the weepy victim story.> We never hear about positive child-adult sexual experiencesMy first sexual encounter was age 15 with a dumpy 15 yo fat girl. My
SECOND sexual encounter was with
HER MOM! She was 36 I believe, and taught me 90% of what I know about sex. Yes, because she was 36 and I was 15, that makes her a sex offender. Yes, technically I was molested by an adult. Do I care? Fuck no! I'd do it again, because the daughter was a terrible lay compared to the mother. The only thing I would change, if I could, would be to stick the daughters pussy on the mother, as 36 year old pussy is nowhere near as nice/clean as 15 year old pussy. :-)
Anonymous T replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 06:42:?? UTC) ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,724):
@5,700The anti-CP in me wants to :< but the /b/ in me wants to "hahaha oh wow" :/ What do I do?
@5,579> In addition, there is no way to know whether the subjects in the pictures were consenting to the sexual activity and the recording or not. You don't know that it's "ruined their lives", because you don't know them. Yet you choose to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people you've had no contact with, which is the entire problem with the anti-pedophile sentiment in the world today.You don't know the story behind the photos period. "Look like you're enjoying it or I'll kill you." I mean seriously how can you know? Yeah I guess you did call me on sweeping generalizations, oops. But validating CP because we don't know if they're being abused just seems like you're trying your damnedest to absolve yourself of all potential blame. I admit this looking the other way habit is rather ingrained into just about everyone in my country… outsourcing to China, for instance, creates many problems and we're just fine looking the other way with our cheaply manufactured flatscreen in the living room. We don't know about any atrocities in China so we're happy. If this is the way you want to live your life then by all means live it. I do the same fucking thing myself :/ But don't fool yourself into thinking you're not doing anything wrong. You do *choose* to indulge in CP after all.
@5,603> If there's been even one case where a person under 18 willingly consented to sexual activity (and there have been many more than one), then the law needs to change.This is akin to saying that if one person is unfairly prosecuted, we should do away with the entire justice system and empty all our jails. I still believe that, while the current laws indeed do some harm, they protect far more minors than they harm. If everyone were kind and loving to children, we would have no need for the laws… but we are not Utopian. What can I say, child rapists and murderers really fucked it up for the rest of us :P You might think I buy into society's paranoia with anything they can't understand, but I would disagree. The potential ramifications are as bad as ruining someone's entire life (and there is plenty of documentation to substantiate this). I don't see how erring on the side of caution is a bad thing… I currently do not plan to have children, but if I do (thankfully I'm not exclusively a pedophile, though I am primarily one) I'd learn towards NOT letting a 20-something or older to have sex with my 10 year old boy/girl.
> I, when I was younger, messed around with my cousins and we all turned out fine and our relationship was completely normal. When I was a teenager I had sexual activity with a younger cousin. She and I remained close as she entered puberty, until eventually life circumstances put us too far apart. I still talk to her sometimes though, and have never heard anything negative. Sometimes she brings it up, but usually in a teasing way.No one is condemning childhood curiosity… I've heard plenty of positive experiences dealing with that kind of stuff. Give me one example of someone 25 or older having sex with a 10 year old and not causing harm. I bet it'd be extremely difficult to provide… while there are countlessly many accounts of the opposite. Usually the apparent facts point towards the truth… it's extremely rare that the true explanation is more complicated than the obvious explanation (case in point: conspiracy theories)
@5,629I just about fully agree with this post. Bravo on phrasing my thoughts better than I could ;)
Anonymous T double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 06:44:?? UTC) ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day past creation (#5,725):
@5,721Out of curiosity, who initiated the act? You or the girl's mom?
Also age of consent = 15 imo isn't terribly unreasonable anyway.
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 12:48:?? UTC) ago, 6 hours later, 2 days past creation (#5,765):
@5,718"Uhh no it's not. Witnesses to accidents happen to view something that randomly happens, whether or not they want to; CP viewers actively search for the stuff."
So? Let's say people go around searching for accidents. This doesn't make them happen any more frequently.
"But would CP producers stop making CP if there wasn't an audience for it? Of course!"
There will always be an audience. A ban doesn't change that. It just makes CP more profitable. Before it was profitable, CP mostly consisted of amateur clips made without the thought of making money. People just made them for the heck of it.
As an example, let's ban fun. Let's shut down YouTube. Suddenly fun, still being in high demand, will face a smaller supply, with UndergroundTube being able to charge huge amounts of cash for it.
Also, there is no expiration date on CP. By now there's plenty of old CP to go around. If you'd like to satisfy the demand, and ration it out for free, the supply would last a lifetime for each and every reciever.
"Now… is it realistic to think that demand for CP will die? Nope. This is of course because of people like you who will always search out CP no matter what, creating excuses along the way that nothing you do is directly harming a child or some shit."
I'm being completely rational about this: Me viewing pictures of potato doesn't make potato more profitable. Seriously. Trust me.
"EVEN ASSUMING YOU ARE CORRECT… what would happen when distribution of CP were to become legal? Hell, lets assume that the *sale* of CP was still banned, but free distribution becomes legal? Do you really think that the increase in sharing CP would *not* lead to more being made?"
With the sharing being lossless, and the boundaries being removed, a small supply of legalized CP can feed the whole world. Compare this to now, where several small sources only reaches a portion of the demand. As distribution would go up, and the demand would be satiated, the creation would plummet.
"There are definitely illegal ways to make money from CP even in the law's current form (otherwise there wouldn't be any news about CP rings being broken up:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=child+porn+ring&btnG=Search+News )."
Yes there are. The legal ones were removed.
"I think kids getting arrested for distroing CP is bullshit too. But you and I both know this is not the issue at hand. Relaxing the law regarding 17 year olds sending pictures to their 17 year old boyfriends is one thing… an 8 year old sucking a cock completely another. Legalizing the former has little to do with legalizing the latter."
I'm talking about the whole law. A major relax of the law (like for instance allowing cartoon porn in all countries) would be a good start.
> > It leaves pedophiles to seek relief elsewhere, like in actual abuse.>> I'm not…and if everyone was like you I wouldn't worry about it, but normally people need to have some kind of an outlet for their sexuality.
> > Third off, making CP illegal has resulted in even more abuse than before.>> So we should make child abuse legal to protect children from child abuse.No, we should make VIEWING (and possibly recording) abuse legal to protect children from abuse. It's not the same thing.
"You might think it a stretch for me to compare the two… but is it really so much of a stretch? What part of your argument even remotely makes sense? I mean in the real world, not the Bizzaro world many boy/girl love organizations live in"
If you have to ask, you KNOW it's a stretch, and resorting to counter arguments that doesn't make sense is a sure sign that the other guy is the one making sense.
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 12:56:?? UTC) ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,767):
To CP lovers: Would you like seeing pictures of your 6 year old kids with a old fat cock stuffed on their mouths? How in hell CP can be legal when kids at that age doesn't even have a fucking personality developed because of EXPERIENCE (which requires MORE than 6 years of life) to judge what you really want. Yes, some if it say "its not forced lol!". Wow, you are able to persuade a kid to have sex with, your social skills are awesome! Now try to archieve the same with 18+ girls, you stupid fucking wankers.
The hypocrisy of CP defenders to sound smart in their arguments, with that pseudo-philosophy tone, is just vile and ridiculous.
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 13:50:?? UTC) ago, 53 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,782):
@previousThere is a difference between liking that actual abuse happened, and sexually enjoy watching pictures of it. When you beat off to regular porn, have you ever thought that the girl you're watching might just possibly be exploited by the sex industry too? Would you care right then and there, or would you care AFTER you've finished beating off? Would this stop you from beating off to it again?
Anonymous V replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 14:00:?? UTC) ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,785):
@previousThats a really stupid counterargument, TBH. If I fap to something (I try to have real sex, first), I'll fap to real porn (normal one, or lesb one, with hot cute girls), where people is ADULT, and where people is supossed to have the experience enought to decide if they like it, or if they want to do it simply because of the money (they can decide how much they want to take, how much is worth it). If you think movies coming professional, safe sources (something like Vivid) are exploiting someone, just get a clue.
Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 18:10:?? UTC) ago, 4 hours later, 2 days past creation (#5,874):
@previousEh.. Porn can only do so much, in the end, it's pretty much the same thing, don't you think? Either a girl with fake enlarged boobs, and a floppy pussy. I'm not the guy above, but I don't get any kicks from watchin "legit" porn. I'm not a paedophile either, sex with a 6 yr old is wrong, and a complete turn off - it just doesn't look right.
But when it comes to say, amateur porn, or even porn of people similar in age to me (and I am below 20) is something I can relate to, and such find hot.
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 18:34:?? UTC) ago, 23 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,877):
@5,785The frequency of abuse of adult women doesn't matter: You can't compare liking to watch porn with abused girls, with liking them being abused, if you at the same time don't care about the social conditions of the women you fap to. …or was this just another "How would you like it if your girlfriend/sister suddenly appeared on screen? Would you fap?" argument?
Also, what about the legal guardian? In any other case the legal guardian of the child is deemed fit to decide things for the child that the child can't decide for itself. A large sum of money just for making out with a teddy bear isn't that bad. Growing up, the girl will be grateful that she'll have a college fund.
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 20:14:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 2 days past creation (#5,901):
@previous> Also, what about the legal guardian? In any other case the legal guardian of the child is deemed fit to decide things for the child that the child can't decide for itself. A large sum of money just for making out with a teddy bear isn't that bad. Growing up, the girl will be grateful that she'll have a college fund.Yeah, so you're saying that a certain mother that's been in the news who drowned her several kids had the right to decide they should all die just because she's the mother? There's a reason why foster care exists… parents DON'T have the automatic right to make decisions for their children that are detrimental.
Seriously, listen to yourself talk, and tell me you AREN'T trying to find every excuse imaginable to not feel guilty fapping to CP and picking up little girls and (potentially) sexing them. You can turn a blind eye to all logic that contradicts your own if you want, but that simply makes your arguments flawed.
I'm not even saying this to change your mind… I think you are literally unable to see the other side of the argument, for the same reason that some people are bible freaks: they can not even comprehend the possibility that certain assumptions are wrong. Godfags assume the bible is 100% right, and you assume that children are developed enough to give consent to all things. No, I'm saying these things so that other pedos don't get sucked into your psuedologic… like I was for a while in my teenage years.
Anonymous X double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 20:20:?? UTC) ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,903):
…or rather, instead of talking about consent, I should have said "the assumption that children have the mental capacity of adults is flawed." There is a particular documentary you should see, which was about leaving middle school aged boys in a house without supervision to see what would happen after a week. They ended up trashing the house… further left to their own devices, they'd probably be in far worse shape than in the care of their parents.
Not to say that it's impossible for a child to have a sexual relationship with someone older and have it be a beneficial relationship… but it requires *far* more responsibility on the part of the adult than in "normal" equal-aged relationships. If the adult brought a camera into the situation, took pics, and exchanged them over the internet with other lust-filled pedophiles… would you consider this adult at all responsible? Do you think this adult would have the child's welfare first and foremost in mind?
Anonymous K replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 20:26:?? UTC) ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,906):
@5,901If you're saying that parents don't have the complete right to decide what their children can and can't do, doesn't that swing the other way in favor of pedophilia? I know if my uncle ever found out the sexual relationship I was having with his daughter (and I didn't mention it but it lasted from about when she was 8 and I was 15 to when she was 12 and I was 19) he would've bashed my head in. My cousin wouldn't have liked this very much, so by your logic he wouldn't have had the right to do it.
As for the whole "you can't understand the other side of the argument!" idea, that's both a foolish and ironic statement. Nobody is raised to think pedophilia is okay, and all pedophiles start out with guilt about their feelings. You have to jump the fence before you can believe in ethical pedosexual relationships. Have you ever considered that it's
you who can't and won't make an attempt to understand our side?
Anonymous Y joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 21:15:?? UTC) ago, 49 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,923):
@5,585Are you male or female?
Anonymous Y double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 21:16:?? UTC) ago, 50 seconds later, 2 days past creation (#5,924):
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 22:02:?? UTC) ago, 46 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,936):
@5,901> Yeah, so you're saying that a certain mother that's been in the news who drowned her several kids had the right to decide they should all die just because she's the> mother? There's a reason why foster care exists… parents DON'T have the automatic right to make decisions for their children that are detrimental. Are you saying that making out with a teddy bear under a guardians care and protection is harmful to a child? It's a simple rubbing motion, you know.
> Seriously, listen to yourself talk, and tell me you AREN'T trying to find every excuse imaginable to not feel guilty fapping to CP and picking up little girls and> (potentially) sexing them. You can turn a blind eye to all logic that contradicts your own if you want, but that simply makes your arguments flawed. There is no logic contradicting mine, just people like you making excuses.
> I'm not even saying this to change your mind… I think you are literally unable to see the other side of the argument, for the same reason that some people are bible freaks: they can not even comprehend the possibility that certain assumptions are wrong.Heh, look who's talking.
> Godfags assume the bible is 100% right, and you assume that children are developed enough to give consent to all things.Actually, that's an argument that I haven't yet brought up - thank you for reminding me: If sex isn't personal to a child, shouldn't that child be more "developed" for porn? I mean let's say that you as a child have 100 cupcakes. These represent your lack of need for sexual intimacy. You know that as you grow up and develop this need, you'll eventually end up with 10 cupcakes no matter what you do. You have 90 cupcakes that's really worthless. People want to "exploit" these 90 cupcakes, stealing your cupcakes while filming it. So? If you had just 10 cupcakes, stealing even one would have been a real issue, but now you have 90 cupcakes to spear, so why not?
> No, I'm saying these things so that other pedos> don't get sucked into your psuedologic… like I was for a while in my teenage years.So what you're basically saying is that you couldn't convert me, and therefore I am a fag. Yes, I'm toying with you, but only because there is so much flaws in your reasoning to choose from: "If God is good, why does he allow evil?", "Why doesn't God answer prayers?", "What about the fossils?" Perhaps I am enjoying this a little too much, I'm sorry.
Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-23 22:33:?? UTC) ago, 31 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,945):
@5,417LOL I LIVE IN ITALY
Anonymous Q replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 00:17:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 2 days past creation (#5,981):
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 01:01:?? UTC) ago, 44 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#5,989):
@5,903> …or rather, instead of talking about consent, I should have said "the assumption that children have the mental capacity of adults is flawed." There is a particular documentary you should see, which was about leaving middle school aged boys in a house without supervision to see what would happen after a week. They ended up trashing the house… further left to their own devices, they'd probably be in far worse shape than in the care of their parents.While all 11-14 yos may not be schooled enough to fully take care of their lives, doing sexual things with their bodies isn't really a complex thing. While you may interpret adult sexual morale as complex beyond your comprehention, it's simple: It's brainwash. That's why you can't grasp it with reason: Sexual morale defies logic, because it's just plain insane. We don't need to be told what to do with our bodies - not by God, not by society, not by anyone. It's that simple. Actually a kid can understand this better than any brainwashed adult can, and they also have the additional befit of not having hormones influence their judgement, making them about twice as sane on this issue.
> Not to say that it's impossible for a child to have a sexual relationship with someone older and have it be a beneficial relationship… but it requires *far* more responsibility on the part of the adult than in "normal" equal-aged relationships. If the adult brought a camera into the situation, took pics, and exchanged them over the internet with other lust-filled pedophiles… would you consider this adult at all responsible? Do you think this adult would have the child's welfare first and foremost in mind?Why wouldn't it be responsible? Pictures doesn't hurt.
Anonymous Z-2 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 03:05:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 2 days past creation (#6,021):
@5,399You're a fucking freak. maybe it's illegal because they have no fucking idea what they're doing?
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 03:14:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days past creation (#6,022):
@previous…and you do? Then tell me mister, what do you know? (Please refrain from religious expressions such as "porn is wrong/sick/evil".)
Anonymous Z-3 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 08:04:?? UTC) ago, 5 hours later, 2 days past creation (#6,049):
It's amazing how you pedos think… like having a conversation with a brick wall. Here is the bottom line: has any child EVER approached you for sex? Or was it always the other way around?
Another question: do you recognize responsibility for any of your actions in your life? Or is it all society's fault?
And are you really thinking about the children? Or are you only thinking about yourself? You'd think at least one child would have spoken out by now…
Anonymous Z-4 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 09:40:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 3 days past creation (#6,056):
@previous> It's amazing how you pedos thinkDont make generalizations
> has any child EVER approached you for sex? I wanted to be abusesd as a child… but there was noone who could fulfill my wish :(
> Or was it always the other way around?I'd never 1. approach a child for sex 2. want sex with a little girl if it's not her who wants to have sex and asks for it.
Anonymous Z-5 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 10:34:?? UTC) ago, 54 minutes later, 3 days past creation (#6,065):
@previousI'll try not to make generalizations. I am prone to it on occasion.
Just how old were you when you realized that you wanted to be abused (with or without quotes?) by an older person? I admit I'm attracted to the idea myself but not until I became older. As a kid, I was always attracted to those my age or younger.
Anonymous Z-6 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 10:39:?? UTC) ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days past creation (#6,066):
@6,049> >You'd think at least one child would have spoken out by now..When children speak out they are silenced and brainwashed by therapists into believing that what happened was evil and wrong and disgusting but not their fault. This leads to more mentally fucked up kids than initial "abuse" in most cases.
Even if you did have an outspoken young proponent for pedophilia they would be dismissed as being coerced. I mean… come on, kids are fucking stupid. They can't form their own opinions, right?
Anonymous Z-4 replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 11:51:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 3 days past creation (#6,077):
@6,065> Just how old were you when you realized that you wanted to be abused (with or without quotes?) by an older person?I think I was about 11 years old, being a quite late developing boy, I was definately a child back then. The age of the person didnt matter… I wanted a friend to act like a child molester :D But I was too shy to say it…
Actually, I looked for gay chatrooms in AOL (that was the internet back then..) and found a pederast who sent me CP :D And I liked it…
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-24 13:35:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 3 days past creation (#6,080):
@6,049> It's amazing how you pedos think… like having a conversation with a brick wall.Thank you. It's nice to get some recognition for being the voice of reason.
> Here is the bottom line: has any child EVER approached you for sex? Or was it always the other way around?1. Children below the age of 13 doesn't have the sex DRIVE yet, meaning they aren't driven to search for sex.
2. They are also mostly kept consciously unaware of sex by society, just SO they don't approach us for sex.
3. Children usually experiment with other children. They are easier to connect with and many adults often ridicule and forbid them.
That being said, I've had 13yos approach me for sex. When I was little I've had an 8yo approach me for sex, and we both enjoyed it. I've lost a steady 15yo girlfriend to a rape gang because she enjoyed being repeatedly gangbanged more. …but mostly children end up being the passive partner, who shyly and timidly enjoy sex. Adult girls are like that in general too.
> Another question: do you recognize responsibility for any of your actions in your life? Or is it all society's fault?That's a weird question. I can't change everything about my life, but I take the responsibility I can. However, society has a lot to answer for. Persecution isn't really something that one can take responsibility for.
> And are you really thinking about the children? Or are you only thinking about yourself?Both, of course.
> You'd think at least one child would have spoken out by now…Like another poster said, these children doesn't have the power to speak up. They are silenced and subjected to horrible things if they prove to be "difficult".
Anonymous Z-7 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-25 00:23:?? UTC) ago, 11 hours later, 3 days past creation (#6,569):
damn i wasnt here for this
Anonymous Z-8 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-25 00:30:?? UTC) ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days past creation (#6,572):
i missed it to
Anonymous Z-9 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-25 00:54:?? UTC) ago, 24 minutes later, 3 days past creation (#6,593):
nooo why didn't I come here earlier
Anonymous Z-10 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-25 05:39:?? UTC) ago, 5 hours later, 3 days past creation (#6,729):
so a 16 year old looking at a naked 17 year old is guilty of viewing CP. legally wrong, yes. morally wrong? dont think so.
Anonymous Z-11 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-25 08:52:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 4 days past creation (#6,752):
yeah pretty much the most recent being some black kid whose been locked up for years for the same thing
Anonymous U replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-25 14:24:?? UTC) ago, 6 hours later, 4 days past creation (#6,761):
@previousWhat this actually means is that society now not only silences sexually mature kids with brainwash shrinks, but now also put them in jail for it. It's a ban on sex when it matters the most. I'm thinking people who graudate from law school never got lucky while they were young, and is now taking it out on children by abusing them.
Anonymous Z-12 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 02:38:?? UTC) ago, 12 hours later, 4 days past creation (#7,080):
best argument: if watching movies without paying hurts the movie industry, doesn't viewing cp without paying hurt the cp industry?
Anonymous Z-12 double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 02:57:?? UTC) ago, 19 minutes later, 4 days past creation (#7,090):
@5,767Would you like seeing pix of your EIGHTEEN-year-old daughter smoking the pole? Probably not, but that doesn't mean all pr0nz should be banned.
Anonymous Z-12 triple-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 02:57:?? UTC) ago, 25 seconds later, 4 days past creation (#7,091):
Also, I still can't believe the OP wasn't a rickroll.
Anonymous Z-13 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 06:16:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 4 days past creation (#7,126):
@6,729if you have naked pics of your self, lets say you were 15
and know if your 18, those pics are cp and you will
go to jail for it
Anonymous I replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 09:13:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 5 days past creation (#7,137):
I'm thinking that there is a way to sell CP that should shut the moralists up: You create the CP yourself, then wait until you're 18 before trying to sell it. If you regret it before you turn legally mature, you can always destroy it.
Anonymous Z-14 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 10:13:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 5 days past creation (#7,148):
@6,080You say that children under 13 don't have a sex drive. Then say you were approach by an eight year old looking for sex? lol /facepalm.
I had a sex drive by the age of nine and was in fact horny as hell.
Anonymous I replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 12:53:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 5 days past creation (#7,153):
@previousYou can still enjoy sex despite not having a sex drive. Of course her daddy got her hooked on sex prior to meeting me, so she knew what it was about.
Anonymous Z-15 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 15:52:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 5 days past creation (#7,229):
If a person is underage b&, would this be illegal?
Anonymous Z-16 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 18:49:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 5 days past creation (#7,428):
@previousIf the computer is in your father/mother's name, the only thing that may happen is going to court and explaining you accidentally clicked the link.
Anonymous Z-16 double-posted this 1.9 years (2008-04-26 18:52:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days past creation (#7,431):
Also, no one who clicks that link will get V&. It's already been posted on 4ailchan most likely, and hundreds of people have probably clicked it. If you downloaded a video or saved a pic, however, you may be in shit.
Anonymous Z-17 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-27 19:47:?? UTC) ago, 1 day later, 6 days past creation (#7,887):
I'm not sure what to think. I clicked the link and a lot of it was disgusting. In regards to Pedos, when I was 10-11 (male) I would have given anything to have sex with a woman, I was horny as fuck. It wouldn't have been abuse because its something I really wanted to do. There are girls who would feel the same. I'm not into kids at all, there's an age where they should be left alone (at least by adults). I also wouldn't fuck any underage girls, not due to me finding them attractive or not, but because I find them REALLY annoying to be around.
Anonymous Z-18 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 00:41:?? UTC) ago, 5 hours later, 6 days past creation (#8,007):
sick fucks. like, disgusting. die in hell fags.
Anonymous Z-19 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 04:08:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 6 days past creation (#8,153):
Ok, so I personally wouldnt mind CP IF!! They are above the age of puberty, I think its kind of hot too, but I think its damnable to have sex (touch) someone that young…Its just not right.
Anonymous Z-20 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 05:05:?? UTC) ago, 57 minutes later, 6 days past creation (#8,167):
This place has been V& it seems.
Anonymous Z-21 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 06:19:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 6 days past creation (#8,176):
lol it got V&
Anonymous I replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 15:45:?? UTC) ago, 9 hours later, 7 days past creation (#8,390):
@8,153If you can just learn to differ between acts and pictures, you'll be able to enjoy it. You watch Americas Funnies Home Videos, don't you? You don't want to experience a lot of what those guys go through, but you still enjoy watching it.
Anonymous Z-22 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 18:30:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 7 days past creation (#8,562):
404 chan 404'd?
who'da thought?
Anonymous Z-23 joined in and replied with this 1.9 years (2008-04-28 19:06:?? UTC) ago, 36 minutes later, 7 days past creation (#8,657):
I went there yesterday for a completely different reason, but yes, it was an empty directory. Pointless website in my opinion.
© AnonTalk.com 2008–2010