Do you actually mean "total" freedom, because that really suggests that there should be no laws, government etc and that's ridiculous. If you don't literally mean that then I think you should think about it a bit more.My ideas of total freedom in society may come to many as dubious and outright far-fetched.
But I am by no means a troll.
No. I do not mean that at all.Do you actually mean "total" freedom, because that really suggests that there should be no laws, government etc and that's ridiculous. If you don't literally mean that then I think you should think about it a bit more.
I may have played devils advocate but I do stand by the idea that legal sex at the age of 16 is tad too high. When I was in high school I knew a few 15 year olds having sexual intercourse. To suggest that these teenagers be punished by the government does not sit well with me.If a ten year old pubescent child decides he/she wants to have sex and you think they should have the freedom to choose what they will, does that suggests that they have the mental capacity to choose everything for themselves. Can they now look after themselves, choose to take drugs, vote etc.
Yeah, agreed, I know loads of people who've been having sex since before they were 16 and I don't necessarily think they've done anything that should be legally considered wrong. But, have you ever heard of anyone being punished for under aged sex, I haven't. I don't think the legal age, 16 is a parameter that should apply to everyone, i agree with that too. But instead of saying puberty should mark someone's decision to have sex i think emotional and intellectual readiness makes more sense.I may have played devils advocate but I do stand by the idea that legal sex at the age of 16 is tad too high. When I was in high school I knew a few 15 year olds having sexual intercourse. To suggest that these teenagers be punished by the government does not sit well with me.
This is simply a glich in the system, a system which would rightfully condemn a 50 year old man with having sex with a 10 year old child.Then why is it if a 17 year old has sex with 15 year old the law defines this as statutory rape? this is absurd
Haha, yeah but that's a whole other issue isn't it. I do think statutory rape is something that's pretty often looked over unless the age gap is significantly larger though.
this is a v good pointThere is a fundamental difference between having sex and acting in a porn film. Having sex, unless you get pregnant, has little effect (if any) on the person's life, whereas shooting a porn film will have a life time effect on the person (almost like once you do it, there is no going back). I do not think, according to my own experience and my knowledge of others around me, that teenagers at the age of 16 can make responsible and mature decisions such as choosing a career as a porn actor/actress.
I think that the only time a 15 year old might get persecuted for having sex would be if they went around telling everyone about it?And that should be the crime. The exploitation and abuse.
But the effect would of this law are the same: to reduce all teenagers to a subhuman level and to deprive everyone of the most precious part of his or her humanity—the freedom to choose. Are you telling me that if a 15 year old had consential sex with another 15 year old that they should be persecuted? This thought of line fundamentally violates the natural rights of all teenagers of such age to own their own body and therefore decide what they wish to do with that body.
No. If the abused did not want to have sex then it is a violation of her right and therefore a crime.
I'm much more fine with removing an porn-watching age than with what "Freedom_" is suggesting.I don't think there should be any age.
re: viewing. I mean, it's practically a given that anyone can go on youporn, regardless of age, so there isn't any way to police the viewing of porn as it is now.
I dont think theres a fundamental difference. Keep in mind that acting in pornography is exactly that, its classed as acting, and even though the participants get paid it isnt prostitution.There is a fundamental difference between having sex and acting in a porn film. Having sex, unless you get pregnant, has little effect (if any) on the person's life, whereas shooting a porn film will have a life time effect on the person (almost like once you do it, there is no going back). I do not think, according to my own experience and my knowledge of others around me, that teenagers at the age of 16 can make responsible and mature decisions such as choosing a career as a porn actor/actress.
This debate is somewhat similar to that arose couple of years ago, when people argued that children at 16 should be allowed to consume alcohol because they are allowed to work at pubs and bottleshops. In my opinion, a responsible society should put the safety and physical well-being of young and aged citizens as paramount to that of their desire and indulgence.
Man, what is with you? Why does every single one of your posts have to be about freedom? Talk about the damn topic or fuck off.
Exploiting children against their will under the facade of freedom.Your concept of freedom is distorted. Allowing all children at the age of puberty (which is, for some, as early as 8 or 9) to have sex is simply wrong. It allows to much space for exploitation and abuse. That's not the kind of freedom anyone should want. The current legal age for sex, 16, is fine and provides a reasonable safeguard against abuse.
Question 2: Do you think that we should legalize pedophilia and child molestation (as long as the abused have hit puberty)?
Let them be, they chose to view such mature material, however raping children on the other hand is an act against their will.does it even matter? people watch porn from the age of 12.
Bullshit.I dont think theres a fundamental difference. Keep in mind that acting in pornography is exactly that, its classed as acting, and even though the participants get paid it isnt prostitution.
Acting is legal at this age, as is having intercourse, so i dont see what the problem is with porn. You can do any other type of acting at this age, just when it comes to sex thats a big no no for some reason [even though its legal for you to have sex]
A 16yr old can work in just about any other industry without nanny state laws trying to "protect" them from their choices. What a load of shit, the ellements of the job are all legal yet you still cant do it, its for your own protection lol.
As for the whole "coming back to haunt you" crap, do you really think someone would make this decision lightly? i am pretty sure they would know what they are getting into. Also, 18yr olds arent all that much smarter, should they be "protected" from decisions they might regret aswell? if the government doesnt trust 16yr olds to make responsible decisions about sex[including whether to work with it or not] then raise the age to 18....but if they want to keep it at 16, then all the jobs associated with it need to be legal as well [unless of course it has elements of something a 16yr old cant do e.g.....i dunno, stripping cause its a bar and you need to be 18 to be in there.]
hey kid i said raise the age to 69.nooooo wayy, keep the legal age at 18, who wants to see people still going through puberty having sex, common there is plenty of pornos anyway, unless of course your a pedofile and like looking at people that havnt fully "matured"