egafd.com

All I can say is !adolf!

Censors always talk of protecting you and childen from violence and sex. However it is imagery that we are talking about, not physical threats,and the freedom of the internet.

Violent pornography is the new buzzword of the censor and it is the old feminist propaganda about violence against women which fuels recent proposed legislation and attempts to censor the net.

State censors always want to control sex and its imagery pornography because they see sexuality as inherently obscene and morally corrupting. I have known women such as Paula Meadows who loved being whipped and sexually used by men and women.So why can't filmmakers make films about reality? Are sexual masochists inherently bad people?
Mike Freedom.

Mark my words, as the pictures used by paedophiles have now been effectively branded "PORN" (I don't think it is or should be, but it is widely described now as "Kiddie Porn" etc), the way they can control that (i.e. owning a picture is an offence) CAN and WILL be applied to "other porn". Once they have created a precedent they have the power to apply to other area's, what is acceptable in one place today may be an illegal taboo in the future. All it takes is a few pressure groups to start pressuring the right people in the right way and the all the boundaries will be blurred in order to achieve their aim in the same way they have with "kiddie porn" (i.e. disgusting photo's of child abuse are affectively held in the same light as topless shots of buxom 16 years olds in the eyes of the law it is one and the same)

I haven't had chance to read the ofcom report yet but will probably be against it.

However to my mind 16 year olds, buxom or not, are still underage and therefore should be seen in the same light as your view of disgusting photos by law.

I've made my view on R18 known many times on here, that I am against it in its present format, why it should be changed and how in my view it should be done so I won't waste anymore time saying it again here.

All I will say is certain parts of the industry have to take the blame for the present regulations against it.

I also disagree with the view that it will lead to greater censorship in other areas. The adult industry and peoples view of it is going forward not backwards.

The trouble is for many it is unfortunately going slower than they want.

"However to my mind 16 year olds, buxom or not, are still underage and therefore should be seen in the same light as your view of disgusting photos by law."

Until a short while ago 16 yr old's were featured as UK page 3 girls (Sam Fox and LDM being high profile examples), and albeit rarely and with the permission of parents, sometimes in porn magazines, so it is a retrospective law. And, perhaps more importantly, they are passed the age of consent (will we perhaps see a reduction in that too?) so are not actually underage as far as sex goes. So, it is ok to shag them as long as you don't take a photograph.
To class some topless teens in the same light as pictures of a young child being groped (or worse) shows how confused society is becoming. However, as far as this thread goes that is merely an aside. My belief is that the growth in acceptability (and it's subsequent slide downmarket) in the past 15 years or so of pornography gives a false impression of what is really happening.

?so are not actually underage as far as sex goes. So, it is ok to shag them as long as you don't take a photograph.?

No, it's not OK. It may be lawful, but it's also yucky, sleazy, tacky, immoral and generally repugnant to the majority in society. Hey, what's up with these geezers shaggin' women in their own age range? Are they scarred of 'em or what? Don't they think they will be able to measure up to a woman who knows what's what? Can they only get it on with the ignorant, silly or naive? Don't they have the requisite confidence to take on a 'woman of the world'?

When you see geezers old enough to be fathers and granddads fiddling (wicked uncle Ernie style) with 18 year olds it fair makes the average straight geezer want to go over and twat them (which they do in the nick). I guess this is down to the primeval fear of sleazeballs and perves predating a man's daughters, granddaughters or nieces.

I said it might be lawful at the beginning of this piece, but the rules and regs have been tightened up recently to stop pervys involving the under 18's in any kind of sexual exploitation - commercial or otherwise.


"My belief is that the growth in acceptability (and it's subsequent slide down-market) in the past 15 years or so of pornography"

Yes, I agree. It's slid well down-market. And the 'teenification' of pornography in the same time frame has quite a lot to do with that - have you noticed that it's all teeny this and teeny that, nowadays. Where as in the past the main body of pornography featured tidy, grown up, people, in grown up situations (e.g. Boss and glamorous secretary). Whereas now it's usually some chortling middle-aged geezers taking advantage of some awful scraggy young chav bird in a mingging council flat. How uplifting can you get, eh? So, if porn is sliding down-market, shouldn't we be taking more time out to turn our noses up at those who are greasing the wheels?


Officer Dibble - food for thought

dynatech wrote:

To class some topless teens in the same light as pictures of a
young child being groped (or worse) shows how confused society
is becoming.

As I said to my mind 16 year olds, buxom or not, are still underage and therefore should be seen in the same light as your view of disgusting photos by law.

Sorry but as far as the law goes for me there is no confusion.

I am not sure were the and, perhaps more importantly, they are passed the age of consent (will we perhaps see a reduction in that too?) question comes from but the obvious answer is NO.

I am of the opinion that it should be raised not lowered, there are good reasons for this but that is another debate and not what Jacques post is about.

randyandy wrote:

> I am of the opinion that it should be raised not lowered, there
> are good reasons for this but that is another debate and not
> what Jacques post is about.


Don't mind me - this is a good debate, carry on it's much more interesting than Ofcon who will loose thier jobs to a Euro- Regulator anyway.

Underage for what and to whom though?

For many 20 year old guys, a full relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old is healthy and normal. Double the guy's age to 40 and perhaps not so. However, this applies if the girl is also 21 surely? It is not a question of it being wrong, merely "undesirable" to some. This is a perfect example of the thought police/nanny state dictating to people what is right and what is wrong. I am not a communist, I don't believe people are equal and I don't believe people are the same, one man's ceiling is another man's floor and that applies to all relationships too, not every 17 year old girl is a gum-chewing unintelligent misfit of the Jeremy Kyle Show variety and not every "older man" a leering pervert with a hidden agenda with no scruples or morals.

The law mentioned above does mean you have to cover your eyes if faced with an old picture of LDM or Sam Fox (neither is my idea of a turn-on but both were staples of huge-selling tabloids in states of undress), the point of my initial response was to underline that the goalposts will be moved (nay, rotated) very easily into other areas of pornography and there is very little anyone can do about it. I personally suspect the "Teen Porn" market will be targeted soon, you may agree with this on taste grounds or whatever, but pornographers should beware because once these kind of inroads have been made, they will be made time and time again, everytime some kind of pressure group gets a bee in it's bonnet. Society uses crime and law as a way of making people afraid (and the obsession in this country with all this paedo-related stuff is a prime example) and the way porn has gone overground in recent times will aid them considerably. If you are going to accept the law as always being correct than there is no need to debate, what is deemed "wrong" by a bunch of hypocrites with hidden agenda's high on their own self-importance and ability to convince an addled public of practically anything must be "wrong" and that's all there is to it. There are more and more laws being passed and legislation being drawn up now than ever before and this will continue. I don't see us benefitting much from all these wonderful new laws protecting us, do you? I see a lot of wealthy people involved in politics and law looking forward to a bright future.

Thanks Jacques I will get round to reading the ofcom report soon.

dynatech you know the answer to your underage for what and to whom question so you don't need me to tell you.

All I would ask is if 16's are acceptable to you why not 15, 13, 10, 6 etc I know they probably are but that's the reason for the age limit in this case.

My own opinion with regards the age of consent has nothing to do with the nanny state or anything like it.

I have two basic reasons why I would like to see the age of consent increased to 18.

The 1st is that to many youngsters are having sex underage simply because they think they are as 'wise' for want of a better word as 16 year olds and I also feel that many of the men caught who thought she was 18 'onest guv would have that area of confusion taken away from them.

There will still be 16, 17 mistaken for 18 but 14 & 15 a lot less often.

My second reason in away fits in with the 1st and it's not always popular but underage age sex costs me money.

I pay for paedos to be in prison and I don't like it.

I also pay to support kids with kids that have been created by teeny relationships.

There will always be the odd exception were the kids family are able to support the child but in the main the support given to kids with kids comes out of my pocket and I don't like it.

The health care they receive is paid for by me and I don't like it.

The housing, housing support and other benefits comes out of my pocket and I don't like it.

I know some kids will use safe sex and not all become pregnant but a lot are or are getting infections etc all of which costs me money and I'd prefer all this money to be spent of better things.

Others may wish to pay for kids having sex but I don't.

Sorry for being a tight old git but most things to me are about money.