http://www.thelistener.co.nz/issue/3462/columnists/7007/get_real.html;jsessionid=360A10420468B5F9065B036D88EA7B03
not a crime in my book. in fact, not even a problem.
no one was harmed, no damage was done.
virtual sex with a virtual underage partnerhttp://www.thelistener.co.nz/issue/3462/columnists/7007/get_real.html;jsessionid=360A10420468B5F9065B036D88EA7B03
not a crime in my book. in fact, not even a problem. no one was harmed, no damage was done. I'm worried about when the vorephiles start turning into giants...
The argument against any underage porn that doesn't really involve children (virtual sex, morphed images, etc) is "it'll just feed the latent urges until they want it for real"
Total BS. Is it like manslaughter? Intent counts. The person didn't intend to have virtual sex with an underage partner so they are less guilty if the person turns out to be underage?
well, if you cant be bothered reading the article...
you have to be over 18 to sign up, they check for that. once some people are in, they create avatars that _appear_ to be underage, and they then get propositioned by others...to the point of having people request sexual bondage type activities. so, both parties are _overage_ for the purposes of this conversation, they have just agreed to play dressup. Next thing you know, certain types of Halloween costumes will become illegal.
No, it has to be 18 in the US for certain content.
"so, both parties are _overage_ for the purposes of this conversation, they have just agreed to play dressup."
Ah. See, what you *don't* know is that our Congress passed a law making it kiddie porn if the person in the photo *appears* under 18, no matter what their actual age is. The law was found unconstitutional, and I think the case involved a *drawing* of a girl portrayed as a minor. Totally victimless crime. The logic was that people who look at even fake images of kiddies will at some point go after real kiddies. "if the person in the photo *appears* under 18, no matter what their actual age is."
oh, good. have they get around to writing out a well-defined standard for the definition of 'appears' yet? or are they doing a marktaw? "The argument against any underage porn that doesn't really involve children (virtual sex, morphed images, etc) is "it'll just feed the latent urges until they want it for real"
Total BS." Really? So after watching a ton of lesbian porn, you don't want any sex? I'm sorry wSV in your case please substitute "barn porn".
heyyyyy....I dont _enjoy_ shagging sheep. I only do it to keep my father in law happy. the old goat is sheep mad.
Yes, but that's beside the point.
I mean, that's not perverted where you come from. Shagging women is, which is why you're a pervert. (wondering now what the interspecies variant his kids are...)
|
|
|
|
|