new group to replace(or whatever) alt.fan.televisionx created by Mr C
rame up as well
alt.binaries.nospam.britbabes
-
richard
max hardcore in child porn charges!
Cheers for the link Joe, I saw a discussion piece on it about Max Hardcore who is standing Trial at the moment for obscenity & child porn charges for using actresses who were over 18, but that they were suggested & depicted as under 18!!!!
So what about Traci Lords who actually was under 18 when she made alot of her films?????
What about films such as Fat Freddies English Schoolgirl Fuckers? Is Fred about to be arrested by the sex police, I think not.
So what about Traci Lords who actually was under 18 when she made alot of her films?????
What about films such as Fat Freddies English Schoolgirl Fuckers? Is Fred about to be arrested by the sex police, I think not.
-
Matt
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
"Is Fred about to be arrested by the sex police, I think not."
Let's hope so, though, eh?
Porn is great but even the implication of using children in that way is repugnant. It'll be a good day when Max gets sent down - I'm sure the prison boys will show him a thing or two about the anal sex he loves so much.
Matt.
Let's hope so, though, eh?
Porn is great but even the implication of using children in that way is repugnant. It'll be a good day when Max gets sent down - I'm sure the prison boys will show him a thing or two about the anal sex he loves so much.
Matt.
-
magoo
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
Matts right on this, we should not allow pae, erm. pee, no spelling never was my strong point, bloody kiddy fiddlers into the debate. It blurs the issue of pornography. Child porn has no relevance to normal porn. An adult who feels sexualy attracted to a child needs psychiatric help (not killing as Mr Normall suggested) and there is no common ground. I rememember being verballed outside a sexshop because the femenists protesting outside beleived that any man who watches porn is a rapist just waiting to explode. You see we as porn fans are harmless, but try telling that to the loonys out there.
Freedom of speach goes so far but I cannott accept the notion that what MH does is resonable. I.e. getting young girls to pretend to be underage. It gives porn a bad name.
Freedom of speach goes so far but I cannott accept the notion that what MH does is resonable. I.e. getting young girls to pretend to be underage. It gives porn a bad name.
-
Isaac Hunt
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
It can get complicated tho - when i was 12 i fancied 12 year olds. Does this mean i am deranged?
-
Rod-Steward
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
I would just like to state for the record that for the past 10 years I have objected vehemently to the implied depiction of children in porn through the appearance of women with shaved fannies. I always have and always will find it a complete turn-off and can not believe that the industry has continued to foist it on us normal men for this long.
-
Imperator
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
Isaac Hunt wrote:
>
> It can get complicated tho - when i was 12 i fancied 12 year
> olds. Does this mean i am deranged?
No, just that you had bad taste
When I was 12 I fancied 30 yr olds. This "older woman" thing still does a thing for me although now *I* must have bad taste since I am 31!
Back on the subject, Max should have anyway been sent down long ago for making crap porn, but that's not a crime yet (pity). And I will be Mr. Unpopular here by claiming that IF society considers it harmful for adults to watch children depicted in a sexual way THEN there is a case to be made for adults watching sex actors posing to be underage in a convincing manner. And yes, I am aware of all the "where do you draw the line?", "thin end of the wedge" and "end of civilization as we know it" arguments. Point is, I don't draw the line; I'll let courts do that, I have enough faith in them.
Anyway, we should not open this off-topic can of worms now, not when we should be mourning for the retirement of Emma Pierce, one of my recent big favourites, ghastly shoulder tatoo an all (now I'm acting my age and fancying younger women)
Imp.
>
> It can get complicated tho - when i was 12 i fancied 12 year
> olds. Does this mean i am deranged?
No, just that you had bad taste
When I was 12 I fancied 30 yr olds. This "older woman" thing still does a thing for me although now *I* must have bad taste since I am 31!
Back on the subject, Max should have anyway been sent down long ago for making crap porn, but that's not a crime yet (pity). And I will be Mr. Unpopular here by claiming that IF society considers it harmful for adults to watch children depicted in a sexual way THEN there is a case to be made for adults watching sex actors posing to be underage in a convincing manner. And yes, I am aware of all the "where do you draw the line?", "thin end of the wedge" and "end of civilization as we know it" arguments. Point is, I don't draw the line; I'll let courts do that, I have enough faith in them.
Anyway, we should not open this off-topic can of worms now, not when we should be mourning for the retirement of Emma Pierce, one of my recent big favourites, ghastly shoulder tatoo an all (now I'm acting my age and fancying younger women
)Imp.
-
woodgnome
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
er, i completely disagree with this point of view and therefore rescind my previous invitation to imperator, to post more regularly! 
-
Imperator
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
woodgnome wrote:
>
> er, i completely disagree with this point of view and
> therefore rescind my previous invitation to imperator, to
> post more regularly!
*Everything*? Including the statements that Max makes crap porn and Emma's recent retirement should be mourned? The horror!
Imp.
>
> er, i completely disagree with this point of view and
> therefore rescind my previous invitation to imperator, to
> post more regularly!
*Everything*? Including the statements that Max makes crap porn and Emma's recent retirement should be mourned? The horror!
Imp.
-
Imperator
Re: max hardcore in child porn charges!
Rod-Steward wrote:
>
> I would just like to state for the record that for the past
> 10 years I have objected vehemently to the implied depiction
> of children in porn through the appearance of women with
> shaved fannies. I always have and always will find it a
> complete turn-off and can not believe that the industry has
> continued to foist it on us normal men for this long.
Now, there's a man with good taste!:-)
To make another of those sweeping generalizations I am so fond of, this is another of the ghastly stereotypes on female beuaty the Ugly Americans (TM) have foisted on the hapless Western World. It goes like this: Hair Anywhere On A Woman's Body Other Than The Scalp = EVIL. Now, I'm not going to dispute legs or armipits, I'm a victom of conditioning too (though I won't ridicule German women for their famous habit with the respect to the latter. But fannies? On this rate scalps aren't gonna be safe for long
It's not as vile a stereotype as those other pillars of Americana, i.e. fake boobs and yucky tatoos that would impress a sailor, since hair can always be regrown; it still denies healthy normal males such as myself the pleasure of being turned on by one of the most ancient visual erotic signals: pubic hair. I was watching the other day one of those ancient Electric Blue thingies, I don't know which one for sure #21 or something (#23 perhaps?), with some Page 3 types going to Australia. Anyway, in the midst of otherwise tearfully boring stuff (such as some lame Aussie stand up comedian), there walk the girls on the deck of some yacht or other, without a stich on them of course. And suddenly I find myself getting turned on by this otherwise innocuous display! OK, so the girls were very pretty, as you would expect from 80s Page 3 types. But there was clearly something else in there to draw the attention of a libido desensitized by years of watching porn . Yep, it was our old, long lost friend, the pubic hair. Allow me to wipe away a tear here.
Imp.
>
> I would just like to state for the record that for the past
> 10 years I have objected vehemently to the implied depiction
> of children in porn through the appearance of women with
> shaved fannies. I always have and always will find it a
> complete turn-off and can not believe that the industry has
> continued to foist it on us normal men for this long.
Now, there's a man with good taste!:-)
To make another of those sweeping generalizations I am so fond of, this is another of the ghastly stereotypes on female beuaty the Ugly Americans (TM) have foisted on the hapless Western World. It goes like this: Hair Anywhere On A Woman's Body Other Than The Scalp = EVIL. Now, I'm not going to dispute legs or armipits, I'm a victom of conditioning too (though I won't ridicule German women for their famous habit with the respect to the latter. But fannies? On this rate scalps aren't gonna be safe for long
It's not as vile a stereotype as those other pillars of Americana, i.e. fake boobs and yucky tatoos that would impress a sailor, since hair can always be regrown; it still denies healthy normal males such as myself
the pleasure of being turned on by one of the most ancient visual erotic signals: pubic hair. I was watching the other day one of those ancient Electric Blue thingies, I don't know which one for sure #21 or something (#23 perhaps?), with some Page 3 types going to Australia. Anyway, in the midst of otherwise tearfully boring stuff (such as some lame Aussie stand up comedian), there walk the girls on the deck of some yacht or other, without a stich on them of course. And suddenly I find myself getting turned on by this otherwise innocuous display! OK, so the girls were very pretty, as you would expect from 80s Page 3 types. But there was clearly something else in there to draw the attention of a libido desensitized by years of watching porn . Yep, it was our old, long lost friend, the pubic hair. Allow me to wipe away a tear here.Imp.