(November 21, 2015 at 10:27 pm)Aractus Wrote: Yes, except for the 1970's Danish material that was produced legally at the time.

Being produced legally in the past doesn't protect it from present laws. Just like how you can't buy weed in Colorado (legally) and then take it to Texas to smoke it.

Quote:Also much of the American porn created today results in performers being damaged for life as well you know.

Irrelevant. Those performers are consenting adults; they are responsible for their own actions. Children are neither.

(November 22, 2015 at 12:02 am)Tiberius Wrote: Being produced legally in the past doesn't protect it from present laws. Just like how you can't buy weed in Colorado (legally) and then take it to Texas to smoke it.

Irrelevant. Those performers are consenting adults; they are responsible for their own actions. Children are neither.

But it's two different levels of abuse. I'm not suggesting you hunt down all the 70's Danish porn you can find and view it, that would be a very bad idea, my point is simply that it's not the same as material produced by abusive parents or paedophile rings. As far as I know, no one involved in producing such material ever faced criminal charges for sexual abuse of children.

I don't even want to know what the fuck is going on in those Danish child porn videos, but those kids couldn't have known what they were agreeing to, and they probably didn't know when or how to walk out when it was clear that they made the wrong choice. Hell, even consenting adults have trouble making the decision to walk out, which I'm guessing is the point of the video you posted. I admire you for being able to stomach that shit enough to watch, but I do not, so if that wasn't the point, I apologize.

Wait, what? We are talking of CP that is/was legal by virtue of the fact that the children involved "consented"?

The thinking that that changes anything about the damaging nature of CP is specious.

(November 22, 2015 at 12:05 am)Aractus Wrote: But it's two different levels of abuse. I'm not suggesting you hunt down all the 70's Danish porn you can find and view it, that would be a very bad idea, my point is simply that it's not the same as material produced by abusive parents or paedophile rings. As far as I know, no one involved in producing such material ever faced criminal charges for sexual abuse of children.

I disagree that it's two different levels of abuse. I think it's the exact same abuse, it just so happened that at the time, the abuse was legal in Denmark. It doesn't matter that nobody producing the Danish material ever faced criminal charges; of course they wouldn't, what they were doing was legal. However, that doesn't somehow make what they did OK, or less abusive.

Slavery was legal for centuries, and I'm sure a load of slave owners never faced criminal charges for what they did, but are you going to argue that what they did is an entirely different level of abuse than slave owners today? It's the exact same argument.

There's a difference though, between a Danish publication that might have had a 16 and 17 year old engaging in some form of sexual activity (that may or may not have included penetration), and a prepubescent child aged 8 or 9 being penetrated by a perpetrator.

I'm not arguing in favour of the material, but it's not necessarily the same as child abuse material. Some of it may be, I don't know. All I know is what I've read about it, and that is that the Danish government legalised pornography in 1969 effective from 1 Jan 1970, and then regulated it a decade later to ban child porn and other issues. And if I'm not mistaken around 20% or more of Danish people at the time had seen child pornography; thus I don't want to stigmatise people who've seen it either since there's no way in hell that 20% of adults in any society are child sex offenders, and I doubt that most of them were actually paedophiles, since paedophilia has to do with precedent children, and as far as I know precedent children were never in any 1970's Danish porn. Of course I have no way of verifying that, but my point is that what is being labelled under one phrase "child pornography" contains several different paradigms.

(November 22, 2015 at 12:43 am)Aractus Wrote: There's a difference though, between a Danish publication that might have had a 16 and 17 year old engaging in some form of sexual activity (that may or may not have included penetration), and a prepubescent child aged 8 or 9 being penetrated by a perpetrator.

I have to agree with him here.

I do agree that our laws are somewhat retarded on age of consent, especially when an individual is merely a year or two under that age of consent. Of course, not everyone is the same, but I certainly know that I was more of an adult than the adults around me when I was ten years old. However, I digress, because age of consent has become truly retarded in this world when the past, backed by science, clearly shows that one is practically an adult at the onset of puberty. The body does not lie, puberty is the body's way of stating that one is an adult, having made that transition from child to adult.

The only reason post-pubescent individuals are not considered "mentally" adult until they are eighteen is due to how the world has progressed and evolved.

If teenagers are going to have sex with teenagers, because I can guarantee there are a rare select few in this world who did not have sex until after eighteen, then an age difference is more about a misconception that the adult is wrongfully influencing the teenager than the fact that there might be a mutual consent toward sex.

Paedophilia has only been a crime in America for maybe 100-110 years. In 1895 in Delaware the age of consent was 7 (seven). During slavery times there was no minimum age at all.

The Babylonian Talmud has whole sections devoted to how to have sex with babies.

The outrage over sex with children is a very recent development. In the past just about every did it or was a target of it. It's still a fairly routine practice in some societies today. Today in America the most common offenders are priests and women teachers. Women usually get a slap on the wrist while men do serious prison time.

(November 21, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Exian Wrote: I don't think that's fair, Cinjin. Attack his points, not him. By all means, don't trust Aractus with your kids, but don't throw around suggestive borderline accusations like that so easily.

It's completely fair.  I never accused him of anything.  I asked him point blank questions.  "Me thinks he protests to loudly."