| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I would delete it, back up the disk, wipe, and do a clean install!
|
01-13-10 02:17am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Definitely delete it. If you bring your PC in to a shop for repair, and someone at the repair shop reports you for porn on your PC, you could go to jail. Or if someone visiting your house looks at your PC without permission, and finds porn, they could report you. The police could search your PC, because you joined some online porn site or for some other reason which might be legal or non-legal.
I've read that PCs (notebook PCs) were seized by customs police from tourists returning from Canada. Don't recall the specifics, but the police kept the notebook PCs of tourists returning to the US from Canada.
|
01-13-10 03:18am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Denner (0)
|
BTW: I think it's great that we PUs AND TBP are active against child-pornography - it's nothing less than disgusting/horrible.
FIGHT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!
In some cases it can be hard to tell if some teen-stuff is on the edge. Exampel: The first Little Lupe-material seemed close to illegal. BUT it was NOT.
Experienced PUs are able to see the difference - but if any doubt: Stay Away - and this user would not mind contacting the local authorities if I stumble over anything that seems too obvious...
But, Thank God, I do not think we'll ever see a regular pornsite with that kind of filth - those people hide...
|
01-13-10 06:00am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :
Totally agree with Drooler.
The witch hunt is on and even having a nude picture of someone ONE DAY short of her 18th birthday means prison for life in the USA. Check the case the supreme court is on now that would allow indefinite detention for sex crimes including "pornography" (the news media often doesn't even bother to say the word "child" with illegal pornography now... I've heard them often just say "possession of pornography" and that's scary).
I also agree with Denner: if in doubt STAY AWAY!
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think I see the direction the right wing wants to take this. It was only a few decades ago when pornography meant jail for nude pictures of adult women. Also, of course, gay sex was a criminal offense in most of the USA until not that long ago.
|
01-13-10 06:51am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Monahan (0)
|
There's no reason why any intelligent person would even think about keeping it.
But what must be done as well is that the source is reported immediately to the authorities.
The exploitation of underage girls is despicable and when discovered must be stopped immediately.
|
01-13-10 08:33am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Denner (0)
|
Another view about the subject:
There's NO reason why PU can not go forward in fighting child-pornography.
Actually, I think it'd be a fine deal to make it a 'landmark' - not sure about the right word in English - but that PUs stand up and states that WE all are very much against child-pornography - and make it a point here!
What about some PU-logo against child-pornography???
Well, some may find this site strange, non-Christian or whatever - but one thing for sure: Protect the children - and let the adults - and ONLY adults do their own thing...
|
01-13-10 08:51am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Denner :
Denner Said: "There's NO reason why PU can not go forward in fighting child-pornography."
Perhaps you missed the text/link at the bottom of EVERY page here at PU where it says ...
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
In case you weren't aware ... ASACP stands for "Adult Sites Against Child Pornography"
|
01-13-10 09:08am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Denner (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Khan :
I missed/forgot that. Did not notice any logos.
But GREAT: ASACP is it here! AND TBP/PU is sponsor.
Thanks!
|
01-13-10 10:22am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
GCode (0)
|
I do know the reasons and respect the law of drawing the line somewhere when it comes to aspects of legality. This goes for pornography, alcohol, smoking, and driving. I would obviously delete the material after finding out because I consider myself a law abiding citizen. However, sometimes these ages really make me laugh as "legal" ages to do certain things. Honestly, it's almost laughable that 18 year olds (both males and females) are considered 'old enough' to do porn. Honestly, there is an extremely minute difference in maturity level of a 17 year old and a 18 year old. While all people age differently physically, I believe the majority of women look the same at 17 than at 18. As far as a so called mental maturity (at least enough to do porn and make that decision smartly) I'd so there is no difference between 17 and 18 or even so on. I'd say 21 should be the right age for it 'legal' to make porn. Personally, I can honestly say I was quite stupid at 18 even though I thought I was as smart as an adult and 21 I even felt that way. Too bad I was wrong even at those ages.
I know that it's hard to do cut offs when doing laws in terms of 'old enough' to do things but I think many are a bit young or even too old. I'm going to stick to porn because I could rant about the other things and I don't want to get off track. I have been working with youth in psychology in the age ranges of 12-18 and I can honestly say that no one in those age ranges should be doing porn. But, I'd say most children are mature in ranges of clusters. This meaning, if I had to lump maturity in terms of age ranges I'd say it goes 12-14, 15-16, and 17-18. If no stopping at 18, I'd go 17-20. I think these clusters have the same maturity level in the majority. Of course, a 17 year old could be like a 14 year old and visa versa but this is majority.
I guess the point I'm getting at is in terms of this poll, a 17 year old being featured in porn is about as laughable and creepy as an 18 year old being featured in porn. However, I do understand that 'one' is legal and one is not, so if the model was discovered to be illegal I would of course delete it. My 2 cents...
|
01-13-10 10:45am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
dracken (0)
|
EDIT: I pretty much agree with the post above me...
This will probably get me flamed, but what the heck is the difference between 17 and 18?
I am as much against pedophilia as the next guy and I am convinced that sexual abuse can mess you up when you're in the developing stages (until around 15-16 according to most psychologists) but the difference between 17 and 18 is too vague IMO...I mean it's not like you're a complete innocent blank piece of canvas and then once you hit 18 you're suddenly all matured and ready for sexual orgies.
Don't get me wrong I am not siding with the Roman emperors or the Greek philosophers (all of whom considered sex with kids as healthy) but I am also not agreeing that one image of a girl that is 17 should land you in jail for life.
The next step is saying that you have to be 21 to be associated with porn and from there to a ban it's just one more step.
As a closing argument I would like to point out how ridiculous it is for an 18 year old guy to go to jail for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, because her dad filed a complaint. Or the two 14 and 15 year old kids that had sex and were both brought into trial for pedophilia against each other... Sometimes an objective law system can become absurd and hurt more than it helps...
|
01-13-10 11:48am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #10 - dracken :
I'll step up to the plate and agree with you, dracken. The difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old? You could be talking months or even just a few days. Yes, it's black letter law here, but there are plenty of cases of girls literally trying and succeeding to get into porn within a short time after having turned 18 (our debate over Sasha Grey's 'It girl' status mentioned her doing this). How exactly, beyond a few weeks age difference, is she anymore ready than someone a few weeks younger? I understand in the eyes of the law that those few weeks are all the difference and not knowing that fact will basically ruin and blacklist you for life but I am still offended by the idea we are all automatically and equally mature the second we hit 18 (except to drink, but that's another debate).
I am not encouraging anyone to break the law, as there is no leniency in underage porn and the vast majority of it is done by force, not the Traci Lords lie-and-fake-your-age tactic (still got a lot of people in trouble, and a lot of porn destroyed), and the last thing I want to see happen is another aspect of adult life delayed until 21, but a little honesty about the situation would be nice. And why is 21 such a magical age anyway?
You also mentioned an 18 year old getting charged with rape for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend; you're right, this is the epitome of stupid. A boyfriend is not a porno. For one thing he probably couldn't last through a whole 30 minute scene, but on a more serious note he is not trying to sell her (i.e. her body) for profit, he is engaging in a relationship, and there's a big difference. Age of consent is determined by state, so it could be as young as sixteen in some areas, but porn is federally controlled and the limit is 18, no ifs, ands, or buts. Some states have a little common sense and apply close-in-age rules which can give exceptions to a few years difference between an underage partner and a partner of age, but many do not.
|
01-13-10 01:32pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
David19 (0)
|
First off, a 17 year old is generally going to have the developed body of an adult woman. This is--in my view--mainly a question of legality (where one draws the line). True child porn is one of the worst horrors imaginable but a nude photo of a fully developed 17 year old woman does not, IMHO, even remotely fall into that category.
My understanding is that a nude photo of a 17 year old is actually not illegal unless the content is sexually explicit. So if the photo was definitely explicit I would certainly delete it. If it were merely a photo of a topless or nude 17 year old woman it would be a judgment call. Certainly there have been mainstream--even Oscar winning--movies which have included topless or nude scenes by 16 or 17 year old women--so this is not all that clear cut an issue where things aren't sexually explicit.
As to whether she is emotionally mature enough or not, we should remember that sex work is, generally, a young woman's job. Often--whether society wants to acknowledge it or not--a young woman will need the income from a sex work job to pay her way through school. So if we expect 17 year olds to be responsible enough to go away to college, they should be mature enough to pose nude. But I do understand limiting the more sexually explicit stuff to 18 year olds.
|
01-13-10 05:30pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
pat362 (0)
|
The main reason why you should delete any material that has a 17yrs old is because it's illegal to own. I'm not going to get into the morale aspect because, I don't think that an 18rs old is anymore mature than a 17yrs old + 364 days. Some girls mature faster than others but I don't think there are too many 18yrs old mature enough to realise the impact a career in porn is really going to do for them as women 5 or 10 yrs in the future.
|
01-13-10 07:04pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
Realistically, if you collect porn that features some young teens then you probably have jail bait on your drive. Not so much from the US, but some the Eastern Euro sites may take a more "lax" approach to age verification even when they have legal disclaimer language. My nuanced point is that if you pay to join websites and download from sites with the legal disclosures (that's almost all the pay sites today) you're probably safe saving content unless you actually know the model is underage even when common sense tells us some of this stuff may not be either due to the publisher or model lying about their age. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're a bit naive if we think everything out there is legit.
Like most replies here, if you know it's a young 'un, you must delete. Being convicted of child porn and registering as a sex offender could put a real crimp in your life so the content ain't worth saving.
As for the 17 vs. 18 thing, it's not worth arguing about. Yes, there are people who could do porn at 17 and not be scarred forever just like there are people at 37 who couldn't handle it at all. At some point you have to draw the line and 18 is where it is for now.
|
01-13-10 07:06pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #14 - Wittyguy :
Why is it not worth arguing or discussing? Yes, that's where it is but why would a statement such as 'not worth arguing about' be stated at all from anyone? I am for saying that the age 'limit' is a bit low in my opinion and I can discuss or argue (whatever u want to call it) that many other things involving an age limit are quite misleading as well. For example, a person in the USA being able to put their life on the line and kill others in war but not being able to drink a beer legally. So, a 'woman' can get gang banged by 50 guys on film which can be shown world wide but cannot sip a beer legally? Hmm, I think that's grounds for discussion right there. I am by no means advocating that there should not be an age limit for any of these acts. However, the poll topic is involving a 17 year old and as I said earlier, I find it laughable that anyone would find a difference between a 17 or an 18 year old doing any porn as one being 'okay' while the other as 'bad'. But, I do know that 18 years old is where the legal age is at world wide and I respect it in the fact that I would not seek out or search content of 18 and under models. Nor do I think it is right for anyone to do so. Therefore, I think it can and should still be discussed or argued that the age limit may still be a little young for it to be 'okay' for a girl (yes, a girl) to be doing such acts on camera legally at 18. Personally, I think 18 is still too young but many can argue that it is okay. I think it is valid to discuss or argue this and quite interesting to get others takes on this subject. Therefore, I think there is grounds for discussion. My 2 cents....
|
01-13-10 08:11pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
David19 (0)
|
REPLY TO #13 - pat362 :
And yet 18 year olds are asked to make long term career decisions regarding other careers when they go away to college and must choose a major--careers where the decision could actually be more easily postponed.
|
01-13-10 08:13pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
David19 (0)
|
REPLY TO #15 - GCode :
Getting a bit off topic but I think a strong argument can be made for the drinking age being higher than the driving age. Since drinking and driving clearly don't mix, giving young people both privileges at the same time could be a recipe for disaster.
|
01-13-10 08:17pm
Reply To Message
|
18
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #17 - David19 :
Of course this is true and I agree. However, the truth to the matter is that maybe even 16 years old (in the USA) can even be seen as too young to drive because at this age a youth has a feeling of invincibility and are not entirely self aware enough to know that by just simply drinking a few and driving can result in dire results (not just getting a DUI) and will most likely do such regardless of what is heard/told to them. Why? because this also ties in to the fact that most youth also feel not only invincible but the fact that nothing will actually happen to them, until it usually does. However, this can be argued for 'adults' as well but I think a heightened sense of self awareness and maturity increases the feeling that these things can and will happen to ones self as you age. It's an interesting discussion but I just feel that any youth who wants to drink for whatever reason and wants to drive will pretty much be done anyways unless credible sources can truly get through to the youth before it happens. This is quite a hard thing to do but that is what life and maturity is, making decisions with certain results and learning from them.
|
01-13-10 08:24pm
Reply To Message
|
19
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
Immediately.
|
01-13-10 10:18pm
Reply To Message
|
20
|
rearadmiral (0)
|
This is a really interesting topic. Too bad it’ll be buried soon when the next poll come up.
One problem with this whole issue is definition. Call me a literalist, but it seems to me that child pornography should involve, at a minimum, a “child” and “pornography.” And, of course, our whole culture agrees on what those terms mean, right?
People mature at different rates. So I think the only logical, workable solution is to pick an age and declare that to be the “age of consent.” 18 seems to be a good compromise.
So the problem is how do we define a child? Obviously the onset of puberty could be a measure, but since that age has been falling over the past hundred years that is no longer a good measure. There needs to be some recognition of maturity too. But how do you capture that in law? I don’t think you can. So we stick with a somewhat arbitrary but reasonable age.
My biggest concern about this is where we’re heading as a society: we seem to lack any ability to put things on a sliding scale of severity. On this scale, some pot you grew in your back yard is treated no differently from the hardest drug for sale on the street. In our example, a picture of a topless 17 year old on a beach is treated the same as horrific photos of a toddler being raped. The biggest problem with this is that when the soccer moms (of both genders) demand that the minor stuff be lumped in with the most heinous of crimes then the cops will naturally go after the easier stuff. That’ll take needed resources away from the true crimes.
For me, at a certain point it becomes the social requirement to regulate a natural desire. If you get turned on by a pre-pubescent child, then you are seriously ill. If you find yourself sneaking a glance at the neighbor’s 14 year old daughter who was well served by puberty with a womanly body you aren’t sick, but you need to exercise restraint because physical appearance can’t be the only measure. To bolster this point about natural desire and the need for restraint, consider the titles of so many porn flicks. (And I admit, this point may be wrong and simply reveal my own biases.) It seems to me that for every title that uses “MILF” or some word or phrase that would appeal to someone who likes 30+ women there are 20 titles that play on some word or phrase that denotes youth. Barely Legal, Just Turned 18, Barely 18, The Babysitter, 18 and Natural, 18 and Easy, Anal Teen Tryouts, Dream Teens, Eight Teen Tryouts, I’m so Young, Nasty Youngsters, Young and Anal… okay, you get the point. My point is that if we lowered the age of consent to 16, we’d see a bunch of movies titled “Just Turned 16,” “Barely 16,” etc. The point is that most of us have base urges to lust after womanly bodies, and if we shift the social restraints to a lower age then most of us would be okay with that.
|
01-14-10 04:38pm
Reply To Message
|
21
|
rearadmiral (0)
|
And I should also say that I first thought (and maybe still do a bit) that this is the creepiest poll topic I've seen since joining PU, but the debate and discussion that it's generated has been great.
|
01-14-10 04:50pm
Reply To Message
|
22
|
pat362 (0)
|
REPLY TO #16 - David19 :
For one thing there are quite a few 18yrs old attending college at this very moment who have chosen a major that in 2yrs time will not be the same one they currently have. Although they might regret wasting those 2yrs. I'm going to go on a stretch and say that none of them will be embarassed or affraid that a decade later somebody finds out about it. I don't know if the same thing can be said of most women who did porn for a while when they had just turned 18.
|
01-14-10 05:59pm
Reply To Message
|
23
|
Monahan (0)
|
Just thought I'd raise an interesting point or two.
An 18 year old babe in Chatsworth California can fuck on camera and drink a faceful of cum, but she has to wait three years before she's allowed to drink a glass of wine.
And a guy from Chatsworth can put his life on the line in the military at age 18 but isn't allowed to drink a beer until he's 21.
And most titty bars (oops, I mean Gentlemen's Clubs)in Chatsworth permit 18 year old babes to do their bare-assed thing sticking her twat in the face of any guy who throws money her way but they don't let any guys younger than 21 to enter, even those who spent 3 years fighting in Iraq.
|
01-14-10 07:04pm
Reply To Message
|
24
|
Homegirl (Disabled)
|
I would feel that child porn is wrong. But I agree with Monahan that this can be unclear and confusing.
|
06-01-20 11:54am
Reply To Message
|
