CGI CP and LoliDolls

ElKahn wrote:Well I watched it and I don't think it depicts minors having sex. In Italy (Salo is an Italian movie) the age of consent is 14 and the actors in that movie are neither 14 nor younger. I'm sure they're all 18 or around that age. I mean, I watched some parts of the movie and it's clear they're all completely pubescent.
But I gotta admit that movie is pretty f***ed up and extreme in terms of nudity and depictions of sexuality....
But pubescent teens are not children.

They are over here. Anything under 18 is now paedophilia. Despite the age of consent being 16, anyone over 18 who goes with anyone over 16 but under 18 is now a paedophile.

Think how messed up I am in my head over my own experiences. Had sexual encounters with adult males since 13, did prostitution since I was 14 until I was 24, had sex with at least two 16 yr old's that I can think of when I was over 18.

Gay age of consent was not lowered here from 18 to 16 until I was 18, so I was raped for 4 years....unless I was in Spain where it was 14 in which case I was not. Was I sexually abused and raped? Am I a paedophile for going with a 16 yr old when I was over 18? Masturbated to For a Lost Soldier (it was the first gay thing I saw) at 14.

In our culture – what am I to make of my memories and experiences?

Matters are worse because I also suffered depression, withdrawal, behavioural changes and started binge drinking when I was 14. Most “experts” would say that is because of the sexual activity. But I am also bipolar, and bipolar children act out, have depression and get involved in risky sexual behaviour. I also had an abusive home life and had struggled to make friends. I was more scared of being known to be gay at that age than I would be to be known as a paedophile today.

My head is swimming and I feel like my mind is about to crack like a Fabergé egg dropped from the Empire State.

cop this wrote:Freedom of expression has limits, unfortunately.

If it has limits, it isn't freedom of expression at all.

Maligan12 wrote:Ok, easy now. I agree with what you've said but al least these masses have their heart in the right place and who hasn't at some point thought "are civil liberties worth the risk of allowing evil triumph?"

Bartering away our civil liberties IS allowing evil to triumph.

Maligan12 wrote:Of course I support search warrants and stuff but chill down a bit an empathize that these people on the other side may still have the best intentions.

While it feels silly providing yet another cliche in response given the Franklin quote already mentioned, you can't give me a set up about good intentions and expect to be spared mention of the proverbial "road to hell".

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

cop this wrote:Freedom of expression has limits, unfortunately.

If it has limits, it isn't freedom of expression at all.

You think freedom of expression should have no limits? What does that make you then - an anarchist? I suppose we just abandon all our laws and trust in the good nature of others, which might seem like a return to past conditions when the most powerful ruled. Yes, I can see the advantages there - for some - but what about all the rest of us? I suppose being grounded in reality is hard for some - especially it seems you! Utopias are fine to dream about but positive progress usually creeps along like a snail. It is a simple fact that freedom of expression has limits - just a factor of us living in communities. Express all you like when you are on your desert island but not elsewhere please.

We have already been warned that if there are discussions between members, especially if they go off topic, they should be taken to PMs.
Just reminding.....we've been warned by the mods, guys. Please let's not ruin threads with off topic debates.

Freedom of expression isn't the freedom to whisper in the dark where no one can hear. And it's the words that people least want to hear that are most in need of protection.

Curtailing freedom of expression is always more dangerous than allowing what you don't want to hear.

All debate is better in the open, so long as everybody has an equal right of reply. When you force opinions underground, you give them a certain validity, and make them more dangerous.

Having said that, being as this is supposed to be a support forum, there are certain agendas that I don't think should be allowed to be promoted here. That should go without saying, and I think it's a lot different to supporting actual censorship.

Graveyard76 wrote:

Curtailing freedom of expression is always more dangerous than allowing what you don't want to hear.

All debate is better in the open, so long as everybody has an equal right of reply. When you force opinions underground, you give them a certain validity, and make them more dangerous.

Having said that, being as this is supposed to be a support forum, there are certain agendas that I don't think should be allowed to be promoted here. That should go without saying, and I think it's a lot different to supporting actual censorship.

Which agendas?

cumulusjames wrote:Which agendas?

We've had a few characters who aren't remotely interested in this forum as a place of support, and have tried to use it as a political soapbox to preach to the world that sex with children should be legal and accepted.

It's a bit like going onto an alcoholics forum and raving about how great Bacardi is, only a lot more dangerous, potentially.

Graveyard76 wrote:

cumulusjames wrote:Which agendas?

We've had a few characters who aren't remotely interested in this forum as a place of support, and have tried to use it as a political soapbox to preach to the world that sex with children should be legal and accepted.

It's a bit like going onto an alcoholics forum and raving about how great Bacardi is, only a lot more dangerous, potentially.

I was a 13 yr old who had sex with adults. I preach nothing. I experienced what went on and I witnessed and observed the situation in other post pubescent youths.

The idea of the paedophile as being someone sexual attracted to a pre pubescent child should remain separate and distinct from the issue of post pubescent youths who have sex with adult males. The process of puberty is in itself natures way of signalling readiness for sexual activity. Paedophilia is the desire to have sex with a being who has not yet been equipped for sexual activity.

In how I developed, one needs to take age our of the equation. Taking age to be preference and orientation to be about gender. I found a place to explore sex with other males. I did not have any concept of age, only attraction. What was available to me was adult males. So that is how I developed and explored my sexuality.

Now think had I been born 20 years hence. The first message being drummed into my head in my puberty would be “all men are bad, men want to abuse you, you must only fancy other 13/14 yr olds”. This would have been when my sexual tastes were developing. So I would have had a psychological imprint that adult men are bad nasty and evil and sexual experience that boys my age are sexy appropriate and everything else.

How would I shake that off at the ages of 16/17/18??

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Freedom of expression isn't the freedom to whisper in the dark where no one can hear. And it's the words that people least want to hear that are most in need of protection.

As often, the goalpost is shifted. Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of speech - the latter being a subset of the former. If we express=act (often) then we also have a responsibility attached to that action. The problem, as with all societies, is that the actions of one individual may impinge on the freedoms of another or others. Hence, as I said, freedom of expression has limits. In the case discussed, it is the freedom to depict some in compromising situations that might cause harm to them, particularly when these individuals (the young) require our protection. Hence, any reasonable person might take this into account rather than crying, 'Oi, what about our rights to freedom of expression'. I am all for freedom of speech, as long as it is not obviously incitement to various illegal acts. Try to relate your answers to what I write, and not to some perceived meaning. As others have pointed out before, I am not against the putting forward of any viewpoint as long as it is in the appropriate forum, but proselytising a pro-paedophilic point of view is not what this forum is about - I hope.