/hebe/ - Girls

pornography of all types- legal

sex with underage- illegal

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

no

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

no

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

yes

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

no restrictions

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

yes

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

a year behind bars for sex with underage and sex registry

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

age of consent would be 14

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

no only people over the age of 14 would be able to consent

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

yes

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

yes but you can't make it

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

no

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

jail time like a few months for first offence &

join the sex offender list

Consensual only, with parents permission mandatory. Sexual contact would be limited to nothing involving the adult male's penis, only stimulating the child with hands or oral. Sex with an adult woman can include the adult's pussy. Parents retain the rights to file criminal charges at any point provided they can prove the sexual acts occurred.

Child porn can be produced, and distributed once the child involved has turned 18, and would be limited to the above stipulations. Child porn possession involving penetration/bestiality/other objectionable content would be decriminalized, but viewers would be put on a watch list. CP possession involving rape would carry the same punishments as now.

>>78895

Would male children be able to penetrate adult females, or top adult males?

What about kids who don't have parents or permanent guardians, really. Would foster parents be able to have sex with their foster children, or allow their foster children to have sex with adults?

And would age be a factor at all? Would a four year old kid be able to have sex with adults as long as their parents said it was okay?

This idea can not b held to standard internationaly

It's all stupid. All such laws are stupid. Parents ought to raise their children and help their children select a suitable match for life.

The old ways were much, much better than this garbage of today. The types today who push power on everyone else think a law is a band-aid, and they think this band-aid is something they can buy forever at a Wal-Mart.

What business does some jackass have legislating who can commit to who? It's disgusting. Of course, it's quite all right to condone faggotry and race-mixing, but

>muh

>magical

>18teenz

Ugh. Trash the whole system.

As an aside, I find it disgusting that they pretend to care about children, even going so far as to project their own problems onto others. They are the ones holding power and using a monopoly on violence against anyone who disagrees with them, so literally everything that happens is their fault.

Spoiler alert: they don't care about children. I still remember what it was like to be a "child," and surely nothing is more revolting than the way those types look down on you and think they're better than you. These people have put a system in place that is extremely hostile to children's interests, and we are just supposed to forget about it when we hit Muh Magical 18Teenz, I guess.

But I remember.

Isn't consent a meaningless concept in an age where most people are brainwashed robots anyway? I bet that no outsider can even attempt to answer that question because it totally destroys their worldview.

If you care about consent, smash every television set and overturn mass media control. Also be sure to destroy educational monopoly.

>>78858

I'd leave it up to the family. If a girl's daddy wants to do sex stuff with his young daughter that's his choice and when he decides she's ready to be married it's time and he should arrange the marriage. Any pre-marital sex should be considered rape(unless it's in the family). Possession of CP should be completely legal, and production should be legal if it's 1) it's only solo or 2)if there's a man involved it's only her father(or husband if she's married), that's really how it should be for any porn.

>>78909

>Would male children be able to penetrate adult females

sure

>or top adult males

i don't know how i feel about gay or lesbian pedo relationships

>What about kids who don't have parents or permanent guardians, really.

a legal guardian is a legal guardian. foster parents generally face more intense scrutiny than natural parents

>And would age be a factor at all? Would a four year old kid be able to have sex with adults as long as their parents said it was okay?

the child should be able to offer unambiguous verbal consent

>>78930

>Isn't consent a meaningless concept in an age where most people are brainwashed robots anyway? I bet that no outsider can even attempt to answer that question because it totally destroys their worldview.

>If you care about consent, smash every television set and overturn mass media control. Also be sure to destroy educational monopoly.

There's so many distortions, biases, and all out fallacies in your post that I don't have the time to point them all out. So I'll stick to this one that you say will shake people's world views....

There are multiple meanings for words in different situations. You're using the simple common terms, which are NOT used in the sciences or legal system. That's your first problem (see below for the legal term). It's like people saying that evolution is just a theory. Scientific theory has validity built through the scientific method. Your understanding of this topic is primarily based on ignorance and bias (in that you have an agenda).

Consent

Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur.

Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement.

Parties who terminate litigation pursuant to a consent judgment agree to the terms of a decision that is entered into the court record subsequent to its approval by the court.

In the context of rape, submission due to apprehension or terror is not real consent. There must be a choice between resistance and acquiescence. If a woman resists to the point where additional resistance would be futile or until her resistance is forcibly overcome, submission thereafter is not consent.

>>78937

The laws which protect children (AoC being just one) are based on other laws (many Common). By eliminating them you also change the basis of many other laws in Western culture; think a ripple effect. You might not like what that might mean for you in this fictional world.

>>78937

>>78939

Just to be clear here, there would be no age restrictions whatsoever? I mean, even kids as young as 3 could say "yes" pretty unambiguously. An adult doing sexual activities with a 3 year old who agrees to it would be okay if you made the rules?

I'm not trying to badger, I just want to be completely certain that this is what you mean.

How exactly is all of this relevant? This board is supposed to be to provide fap material to unwanted men, even if it fails miserably at it.

How can you expect people that have not have sex to provide any opinions towards what the laws should be involving sex?

And what is child pornography? Maybe the focus should be to provide clear legislation so we know what is, and what isn't?

>>78937

Anything that pleases your dick, amiright?

A degenerate pervert that supports incest,a common way for pedos to molest, but not racemixing?

I hope child protection laws improve, I hope it scares the perversity out of your sick mind.

Your post is one of the worst indications of a predator, it exudes a warped sense of intimacy, it shows how possessive and manipulative a person could be.

You like that daddy-daughter relationship the most, don't you?

I know you guys will mark me a troll and "downvote" my opinions, but you should know that i would do anything to place you into prison, where you can get the purest taste of your own "medicine".

I have the utmost contempt for irredeemable fuckers on this site, but some people here have better opinions than the circle jerk on reddit.

>>78945

just saying the word yes is pretty ambiguous

>>78950

> but not racemixing

>Anyone can have sex with anyone.

>but you should know that i would do anything to place you into prison

we also happen to know there is nothing you can do.

>>78951

nobody cares, you laughably butthurt tripfag

stay mad

>>78945

> An adult doing sexual activities with a 3 year old who agrees to it would be okay if you made the rules?

>>78945

> An adult doing sexual activities with a 3 year old who agrees to it would be okay if you made the rules?

This is anontalk.se esque absurdity...

>>78952

>we also happen to know there is nothing you can do.

I'll vote for more politicans with vigilant policies against sick fucks.

What is your prison sentence right now? Five years minimum, for one picture? Perhaps we can raise that to ten years, or even twenty.

You would need to be placed in the general prison population. The prisoners would certainly listen to your opinions on child rape but you won't like what happens next...

>>78956

>Antis can't refrain from showing their kindness to others

You don't want my "kindness", and I'm saying that as a pedo myself.👮

>>78957

we both know you don't leave your house let alone vote

nice impotent revenge fantasies, totally doesn't show how pathetic you are

stay mad

>>78960

Stay scared, you'll never get that underage poon that you crave so badly.

"10 years per picture" 2016 Presidential Nomination.

>>78959

> I'm saying that as a pedo myself.

You say that as if pedos had to be friends with each other?

>>78963

Wut?

You don't have many friends, you better stick together.

No man, in his right mind would allow you to be his friend, let alone associate.

>>78962

scared of a self-hating shitposting tripfag making an embarrassment of himself?

>>78964

You are right, I have very few, and the few friends I have don't know I'm a pedo.

What about you? Do you have many friends who accept you for being a pedophile?

>>78966

>What about you? Do you have many friends who accept you for being a pedophile?

Every friend that I've told so far.

>>78965

>scared of a self-hating shitposting tripfag making an embarrassment of himself?

Why does tripfag seem like more of a derogatory label than pedo?

Oh, and i wasn't implying that you should be scared of me, I want you to be scared of my contribution to laws, restricting sick fucks, like yourself.

Dummy.

>>78975

well you seem to think its derogatory enough to have taken it off, much to my amusement

>I want you to be scared of my contribution to laws

bahahahahahaha

im more scared of your contributions to stinking up a room tbh

>>78949

We do have clear legislation on what is and isn't child pornography. If it is pornography, and someone under a certain age is in it(currently 18), then it is child pornography.

Disagree with it or not, you can't argue the legislation on the matter isn't as clear as day.

And as for defining pornography, it's pretty clearly defined most places that have laws on these things. There's a lot of grey area, which this board is very fond of, but what clearly constitutes pornography and involves a minor is child pornography, as defined by the laws today.

The main problem with many laws is that they're based on fear more than facts and mostly they're used to tax or lock people up rather than protecting people's lives, liberty, or property. If I rewrote all of the laws concerning sex and porn I'd concentrate on maximizing individual liberty and responsibility, as I would for any laws.

No activity would be considered a crime unless it directly violated another person's rights to life, liberty, or property through force or fraud.

Rape would still be a crime, as would assault or battery. Sexual activity between two or more individuals would be none of the state's business unless force or coercion was involved.

Consent would require a person knowing exactly what they were doing and making a voluntary decision to do it. In the case of children it would also require the consent of their legal parents or guardians, but most importantly the child, who could also apply to be considered of the Age of Majority, assuming they could demonstrate adequate maturity (specifics TBD) and with parental consent.

Simple possession of any media (including video, audio, images, etc) would be legal unless protected by copyright or other property law.

On a related note, in the early 70s The Residents released an album called Baby Sex. The album cover was "borrowed" from an old Danish porn mag, an image of a naked woman performing oral sex on a male infant. At the time it was considered "artistically rude" but not illegal. Today it would be considered cp. Under my revised laws it again be considered a distasteful but harmless bit of art (and very tame compared to most of what else is out there).

As for images of a person being raped, they would be considered evidence of a crime, in the same manner as beheading videos or snuff films (which are currently available today and often shown on the news to promote whatever war we're told to get behind). Simple possession of such media would not be a crime. Rather than going after those who view such materials as they do now with cp, LE would instead investigate those seen in the images committing actual physical crimes (such as rape, assault, and/or murder).

The focus of criminal sentences and penalties would be to rehabilitate people and change convicts' behaviors while making every attempt to heal whatever damage has been done, quite the opposite of the current system where the priorities appear to be maximizing profits and ruining lives under the guise of protecting people.

In a better system if you've killed, raped, assaulted, or used force against somebody your sentence will be to correct yourself and fix the situation you've created to the best of your ability. Why rot in a cell for several years when you could be working to better yourself and the world around you? Time in prison will not be mandatory unless you're found to be a clear and present danger to other people or their property. Your progress through the whole process will be determined entirely by your commitment to improve and to heal any damage you've done.

And if you haven't used force or fraud against anyone (ie you've been caught looking at pictures online but nothing else), some therapy might be recommended, but as with any other materials you could read or watch (ie violent movies or video games) the whole monkey-see-monkey-do assumption will not be used to ruin your life just so total strangers can fool themselves into thinking they're any safer with you in a cage.

As for the registry, the whole point is to keep an eye on dangerous predators and keep them accountable, not to label every porn fan or teen sexter as a subhuman and make it impossible for them to ever find a job or place to live or public place to safely enter for the rest of their lives. In a better system the only people on the registry would be those who physically raped or molested others.

Short story exceedingly long, the focus needs to be shifted completely towards the physical use of force and away from what people think, and what others assume or imagine they might do. Freedom and responsibility, NOT fear and assumptions and even more excuses for those in office to abuse power.

P.S. If you want to change the laws to restore freedom and responsibility then I'm in 100%.

But if you just wanna use any excuse to F kids...shame on you.

AOC = 14

Porn depicting acts that violate these limits = illegal

Everything else: OK

I don't see the point in all these suggestions to replace current arbitrary numbers with new arbitrary numbers.

For me, I would simply suggest they devise a method of testing whether an individual can fully comprehend their own decisions/actions, decisions/actions of others, plus the obvious, possible and even most unlikely of outcomes of any of the above.

If they are able to pass this test, they are then authorized to be an adult - regardless of age.

I'm sure there would be some great adult teens and, even better, a ton of 20,30 and even 40-somethings stuck "sitting at the kids table" rather than fucking things up for everyone else.

>>79137

Putting aside the subject of paedophilia for the moment...

This may be the most well thought out and well written thing I have ever seen on this board. To poster: Is it your original text, or copied from somewhere, and if so, where?

I would vote for any candidate for any office who incorporated these policies into their platform. THIS is the direction our society should be heading. (Of course, the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none, unfortunately.)

>>79137

Putting aside the subject of paedophilia for the moment...

This may be the most well thought out and well written thing I have ever seen on this board. To poster: Is it your original text, or copied from somewhere, and if so, where?

I would vote for any candidate for any office who incorporated these policies into their platform. THIS is the direction our society should be heading. (Of course, the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none, unfortunately.)

>>79202

Sorry for double reply.

Remove any rape laws between male and females. Men own women/girls and thus we can do as we please. Fathers can do anything to their daughters then trade her or sell her to other men.

>>79232

So,I guess you're Muslim.

>>79201

> THIS is the direction our society should be heading. (Of course, the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none, unfortunately.)

The reason there is some built in ambiguity (or arbitrary) is because human's are not robots. Everything isn't black and white in the world and different sub-cultures (in the West) have different values. This perfect system you seek cannot exist because people are not perfect.

BTW, I'd say the vast majority of the people here also do not understand law or cultural dynamics and their opinions amount to oversimplified pipedreams. The reality of what most of them would want could never exist in any Western nation.

>>79202

I'd be more interested in maintaining the Medicaid expansion, considering it was the first health insurance I had in my life and because of it I was able to get surgeries I've needed for years. The fact that you're more concerned about the age of consent betrays a good deal of privilege, for some reason you can't find pedophiles that grow up

>>79137

I vote for you, Sir!

>>79351

>>79202

Thank you for kind words. The only thing I copied was from Somebody's Gotta Say It by Neal Boortz (a proposed and obviously ignored Constitutional amendment that Congress should not view any activity as a crime unless it infringes on the rights of another person). The rest was just me ranting endlessly as I often do.

Seek the truth. Question everything and everyone, especially if they're trying to sell you stuff you don't need or want. Love all people. Cause no trouble. Glory to Arstotzka. - SOS

>>79243

No conservative atheist.

Acts are not laws

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

no means no

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

Age of consent is 16. 13 - 15 yo can apply apply for a waiver (basically pass a simple written test demonstrating knowledge of risks of sexual activity and birth control methods). Consensual sexual activity with those younger is a misdemeanor, but the standards of proof for coercion are lower, and if the the child is injured as a result, assault charges may be pressed. Porn of legally consenting activity is legal (cp is considered images with minors 12 and under, or 15 and under without a waiver).

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

yes

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

Production is illegal. Paying for it is illegal. Simple possession is fine.

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

yes

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

Registry for rapists and cp producers. Removable (no mandatory reporting, etc.) after a certain amount of time (10 - 15 years, depending on the severity).

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

Rape is still rape, anyone unwilling, forced, or cohersed will still be punished.

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

AoC is 14, can go lower with Romeo/Juliette and/or parental consent. I like the idea of younger kids having to prove an understanding of what sex/protection is for a sex license.

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

Yes. Ban racemixing. Kill niggers on site

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

No banning of any information/data will ever happen. Production is banned for kids under 14 unless they have parental consent and a note from a certified psychologist saying they are of sound mind. Each member of the production would need to fulfill a deep background check to exclude any criminal elements, as well as undergo training to protect the mental state of the child. Production's including kids 11 and under would additionally need psychologist's notes before and after each shooting and have the production plans filed with a regulatory agency and looked over by professionals to make sure the child would be unlikely to be damaged during the shoot. Production's including children 7 and younger would additionally need a whole fuckton more including psychologist present during the shoot, and expensive fee's, as well as insurance for mental damage to the child. (As you can probably tell, I've spent the most time thinking about how to sell this to normies.)

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

No banning of any information/data will ever happen.

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

As much as there is now, I guess. Including rape/cohersion of a child being more punishable than the same with the victim being older. I haven't heard that the sex offender registry has done a lick of good for preventing children getting abducted and raped for how much it can fuck up a person's life.

>>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

Rape would still be considered illegal. And frankly, treated much harsher than we do now. Serial rapists would be castrated both physically, and chemically to suppress their sex drive.

Consent will ALWAYS be required, regardless of age, sex, gender, etc.

>>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

AoC would be 14. There would be Romeo and Juliet laws to assure that minors don't end up in prison and on the sex offender list. Additionally, they would also give some flexibility to people over the AoC. But it would be minimal. IE 15yo with a 13yo.

>>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

Yes.

>>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

Possession, and distribution would be legal as long as there was no money being exchanged.

Production would be illegal.

The age for legally producing porn would be 18/19. I want them out of high-school. High-school is already a shit fest. Imagine having a professional sex-tape. I really can't see that going well for anyone.

The goal would be to make CP essentially worthless by allowing the market to over-saturate itself. Ideally, CP would only be traded for other CP.

Ultimately people are going to produce CP. Regardless of monetary gain, legality, or risk. Let the product be traded freely to minimize any monetary worth, and go after the producer(s).

>>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

Production of rape porn, and/or hurtcore would be illegal under to produce under ALL circumstances. Possession would be legal simply because there's no point in going after people who have it.

CP is already hugely illegal. But there is a thriving community around it. LEA freely admit that the numbers are still growing. Just like the drug war, it's a lost cause that's turned into a reason to sink billions of dollars into law enforcement.

So in my mind going after people who possess it, simply isn't effective use of tax dollars. I rather the money be put towards going after the producer(s), and rapists.

To be clear, it would still fall under the previously stated guide-lines. IE: Cannot be distributed for monetary gain.

>>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

Jail time, sex offender list, physical and chemical castration may also be used. Additionally, for those who are unable to be trusted in the public, life sentences would be used.

Though with that being said. I also believe in that prisoners should be allowed to euthanize themselves under strict rules.

IE: Life sentence or a sentence where they will die in prison (50 year old gets sentenced to 75 years). And there would be rules about being in a sound mind, etc etc. There will also be a waiting period until you can go through with it, just incase there is evidence that proves innocence.

Let me put it this way. If you're in prison, and you receive a sentence that's basically guaranteed that your going to die in prison. You should be allowed to speed up the process. Save the tax-payers some money.

>>78858

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

In principle, consent is indispensable. However, as it's not easy to ensure actual consent ('yes' isn't a reliable indicator, and 'no' is neither), a general 'protection age' (not 'age of consent', that term is cock-eyed) is imposed. That threshold has to be checked periodically (every 10, 20 years or something) and, if needed, reset according upon the recommendations of a board of psychologists, sexologists and other fitting kinds of scientists nominated and chosen by some basic democratic means.

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age?

There is a gradation of serveral shades of consent as well as scenarios in which different consents are reasonably sufficient. E.g. adolescents which know each other very well aren't required to show an amount of consent as deliberate as a middle schooler and an old grandfather would be. I'm not sure though how to set this gradation.

While consent can be easily implied by people above the protection age, below this age consent cannot simply be inferred because the risk of mismatches between the actual consent state and what gets communicated to the outside world is too high. Parents or legal guardians can approve sexual actions in individual cases (but not generally), given the child's opinion has been clearly stated (by the child) and is positive, too. Parents of a child below protection age can also retract their approval if things develop differently than expected. In dubio pro reo, however, those who have had sex with a below-protection-age child with parental approval at that time have a significant chance of not being prosecuted unless the parents can prove that their approval has been exploited by that person in a way not intended by them. I don't know yet how I'd cast this in a law text, but the idea is to find a balance for the trade-off between parents' freedom of education and their ability to ditch unwelcome people using legal loop-holes.

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

I don't see any reason why there should be a favouritism to some race. Or gender, whatsoever. Really, this would be a breach of equal treatment most democracies today vow to ensure.

>>87937 Cont.

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

Now comes the tricky part.

As a matter of fact, I've long been perplexed by the idea that child porn has to be penalized specially.

Producing, trading, actively acquiring any kind of recording of actual events that are illegal is also illegal, unless the person producing, trading, of acquiring it can prove they didn't know what's being shown is illegal, or can prove the main intention behind the acquisition was handing it over to public authorities as evidence. As with any kind of alleged crime, the burden of proof lies with the authorities. That is, the public prosecution has to prove that someone has produced, traded, or actively acquired such a recording, and they have to prove that this person knew the depicted events are illegal, and they have to prove this person's intention was not handing it over as evidence. (In most cases which have caused child porn trade to be seen as something highly problematic for the last 20--30 years, delivering all these proofs shouldn't be very challenging.)

This way, offensive child porn and rape porn are made illegal in one fell swoop, as well as many videos made for cyber bullying. Plus disseminating videos of beheadings becomes illegal, too, not only the beheading itself, preventing such videos from being spread across the internet by guileless, shocked Facebook users who feel the misplaced urge to share it.

As for the production of child porn with parental approval -- until I read about LS studios in Wikipedia or somewhere, I'd have thought no parent would grant any --, I fancy >>87870's notion of strictly regulating that very process. It's sometimes astonishing how restricting something down to an acceptable, but not anymore really gainful minimum can prevent the emergence of illegal, more extreme variants of it behind the scenes, likewise. The extreme, brutal forms of child porn, however, which are heavily criticized and the reason why child porn is banned almost everywhere, although tackling it, at least online, seems hopeless and the war against child pornography unwinnable, these extreme, brutal variety are rather at the instigation of sadists, not paedophiles really. Those people, sadists, need brutal rape videos to get off. They won't be impressed by regulated, restricted vanilla child porn blessed by the government. And of course brutal child porn stays illegal. So in order to mitigate the dissemination of such brutal child rape porn, authorities would have to be granted a lot more rights. But that's a different issue really.

>>87939 Cont.

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

No sex offender registry. It stigmatizes sex offenders and therefore violates the basic principle of law that punishment is imposed only by the state and this punishment has to be one-time and temporary. Based on these principles, I currently favour a solution which divides crimes up into discrete categories (like business crime, material crime, hate crime, sex crime, etc.) which separately get assigned sentence levels based on the severity of the crime (e.g. murder gets punished more severely than mayhem), the repeatedness (e.g. incorrigible thieves get punished more severely than first-time shoplifters), and maybe other criteria (e.g. extenuating circumstances). As for sex crimes, this means considerable-yet-weak punishments (like a hefty fine) for first-time sex offenders, depending on the severity of the assault, and prison sentences for repeated assaults, their length depending on how severe the assault was and which number and how long the last assault has been. The judge or jury are granted wide discretion. As an intrinsic property of this kind of legal system, every judge is required to specialize in one crime category to prevent greenhorn judges or judges unfamiliar with this kind of matter from pronouncing inappropriately light or harsh sentences. The same for attorneys and prosecutors, by the way.

>But I wanna see exactly how you think it's bad, and what you would change.

The worst thing about the current system is that there is no system. Every country has its own policy, and The Internet doesn't have any. Even within countries, policies are contradictory or inconsistent. In some you can legally have sex with a 12-year-old but recording it is illegal. In others it's the other way round, which doesn't make sense at all. It's okay for different countries to have different policies towards a matter but only as long as they steer in the same direction. If that direction isn't the right direction, it's not really better, but in a globalized world, a fundamental mismatch among policies is far more dangerous. After all, 'right' and 'wrong' is a highly subjective notion. My law proposals are above. They're far from being perfect, but they might work -- better than what we have currently.

>If you made all of the rules and laws regarding child sex and child pornography, how would you do it?

Set the age of concent somewhere between 14-16, I feel it is kind of an arbitrary line. So I would say there should be shown leniency based on what the minor have to say.

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

No...

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

If the person say they wanted to have sex with the older person this should be consider in a court case, but as I said: age of consent should be somewhere around 14-16.

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

Yes, I'm not a supporter of sexual and racial discriminatrion.

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

When it comes to posession I would say that there should be no restrictions. If you have possesion of pictures that incriminate you will be judged by what these pictures are evidence for.

Distributing is an other thing, I would say if you distribute childporn commercially you should be sanctioned. If a person upload a CP-picture here for example he/she shouldn't get more than a ban.

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

Yes, but why someone would wish to have such porn is beyond me.

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

Sex offender registry is silly.

Jail for serious violations.

Fines for minor violations.

> If you made all of the rules and laws regarding child sex and child pornography, how would you do it?

There would be a standardized test available to people of all ages whose job is to determine if they are sufficiently informed to form the basis of informed consent. The test mentioned the emotional component of sexual relationships, the biological stages of sex and pregnancy, the costs and physical and emotional consequences of reproduction and childbearing, methods of contraception, etc.

After you pass the test, you are licensed to consent to sexual activity. Children who pass this test can give informed consent to sex, adults who fail it cannot. You can take the test as early as you like, you must take the test for the first time no later than the onset of puberty, you must be retested every year, and three consecutive failures results in your mandatory non-reversible sterilization.

>>87971

What's the point in sterilizing dumb people?

Apart from that, sounds interesting, but won't be practiable in big countries. Well, I live in Europe and see countries struggle with the current flood of refugees every day. If the registration of some thousand refugees per diem poses such a problem for a country, what about some million adolescents to be tested for informedness? There are e.g. currently 24.7 million children aged 6 to 11 in the US (http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp). They'll reach puberty within the next 6, 7 years from now on, resulting in about 3.5 million children reaching puberty per year, that is about 10,000 per day. How fast would bureaucracy have to work in order to work off all those tests? It won't be a problem in sparsely populated areas like Nebraska's Middle of Nowhere, but big cities like NY or LA? Well, at least this could provide new jobs.

That said, I don't think your idea is silly or something. I just think the effort wouldn't be justified.

>>87980

"What's the point in sterilizing dumb people?"

To uphold civilization.

>>87982

Civilization needs healthy people a lot more than it needs smart people, and a look at any job board will prove it.

But to the conformists anyone with a physical disability is retarded anyway.

>>88018

Menial work might be one basis of civilization, but that does not mean that intelligence isn't one basis, or perhaps the unique factor underpinning civilization.

>>88065

If nobody is willing to pay for it, it's not a basis of civilization.

>>88065

And intelligence is specifically not wanted by our civilization. Ever hear the term "overqualified"?

>>87939

Ah, I've forgotten one crucial point: Of course the intention behind the recordings would also count, i.e. recordings of illegal events are only illegal if they have been produced with, say, mainly voyeuristic or demagogic motives. This way, freedom of the press isn't touched. Either way, the law should include exception clauses safeguarding investigative journalism.

>>87982

With all due respect to eugenics, we need the dumb. In Brave New World, they even breed them specifically.

>>87980

>>87982

I'm sterilizing irresponsible people, not dumb ones.

>>88124

So what kind of test shall this be that irresponsible people fail it while dumb ones don't?

Clearly not multiple choice.

>>88090

>>88124

What society currently values, I agree doesn't reward a sharp mind too much, but I think we are also declining as a civilization as a result. Civilizations have come and gone. The fruits of civilization enables its own destruction.

You can't deny that there is some basic level of intelligence required to uphold a civilization.

Look up e.g. the correlations between IQ levels and life outcomes.

There are some very productive individuals, say engineers, programmers, computer scientists, etc, that have indeed contributed a massive amount. Not everyone can be one, and I do think there are decreasing incentives to try and establish oneself in such fields, but also declining genetic foundations for those tasks.

E.g. it used to be that if you had money you had better chance of attracting women, and it used to be that White nations didn't accept a whole lot of low-IQ immigration.

>>88141

http://www.mintpressnews.com/can-someone-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/192106/

sex with underage - illegal

adult porn - legal

underage porn - drawn or fiction is legal. No real life models.

amateur porn - what about the 15 year-olds who take a phone pic of themselves doing oral? This would need to be loopholed, I think. What about when the kid is 18 and sends it to a friend, and it "escapes" onto the Internet? Dunno. Might allow that if neither person objects. Perhaps a floor age for this loophole as well. No distributing pics even of self taken under 12, say.

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone, regardless of consent?

no

>Would anyone be able to have sex with anyone as long was consent was involved, regardless of age? Meaning five year olds would legally be allowed to have sex with adults as long as they said yes?

no

>Would the laws apply equally to all genders and all races?

yes

>Would you be able to have child porn of any kind? Would there be any age restrictions on that?

Drawings, CGI, fiction would be allowed.

>Would you be allowed to own porn where someone is legitimately brutally raped?

if faked

>What would the punishments for going against whatever guidelines you set be? Would there be jail time? A sex offender registry?

a year behind bars for sex with underage and sex registry

I'm of the opinion that there should be some sort of test to be able to determine whether or not you have the capacity to understand and consent. Some kids are way ahead of even some *adults* I know when it comes to maturity thanks to their upbringing, so they could likely handle their own sexuality at an early age. This test could also be used to determine whether or not you are cognizant enough to vote, or drive. Though the latter might still need certain size requirements or safety adjustments depending on the vehicle.

I know when I was 12 I actually wanted to have sex with adults, but no one would touch me because I was too young.

>>88233

God fucking damn it! WHY DON'T YOU HORNY LOLIS OF THE WORLD SPEAK UP?

>>88234

Protective Catholic parents.

>>88240

Shit, I'm Catholic. It's a great match from the getgo.

>>88241

Damn... that is a pity. In another time, in another place... we could have had some amazing toe curling sexual encounters. Then again I'm also the kind of person that won't go all the way until marriage either.

>>88224

I forgot to edit the last line. Punishments would range from misdemeanor jail time to burning at the stake.

Sounds severe, but please remember, fictional CP would be legal, and the AoC would be a sliding scale based on the age of the youngest, so really, few innocents would be tripped up. Also, tarts lying about their ages would (though tough to prove) would be committing enticement.

>>88233

As for a test... good luck. Never mind the criteria, I fear the pressure to allow adults to plunder the underage would quite overwhelm any testing system's integrity. Also, you would be giving the State the power to tell any citizen they are not Smart Enough to Fuck. Sounds cute in the chan, but in the real world, the abuse would be horrific.

When I was 13, I had sex with adults. It's called Getting Away With It, and if you're not smart enough to do it, you're probably not smart enough to bang adults.

>>88243

The idea is that there would still be the age of consent, but that you could still apply for a test to prove your competency and independence before reaching such an age.

As for getting away with it? It was more a problem of finding adults who would actually be okay with it, and getting out from under my parent's thumb. They were rather controlling of my life as a teen.

First we need a law clarifying that no action is a crime unless it violates somebody else's rights through force, fraud, or coercion. Next we need to put individual freedoms and responsibilities first. Then we can talk about replacing AoC laws so they make sense. If you're educated and sexually aware enough to make an informed decision concerning your own body, age is no longer a factor, and it shouldn't be.

Rape and assault remain criminal, but anything relating to a performance where all persons involved are just playing roles (just as if they were making a movie or TV show) should be protected like any other voluntary form of entertainment. Let the public decide what they like and what they avoid because they find it artistically rude or in poor taste (which cp was generally considered until the 80s, just another fetish porn like scat/golden showers). Imagine a new sort of warning label.

"All of the producers and performers are UNDER the age of 18 and appear with the full understanding and consent of themselves and their parents/legal guardians. Viewer discretion advised."

Legislating taste only creates more problems, overcrowds prisons, and distracts our attention from important matters. A clear line needs to be drawn between real crime and bad laws that are constantly broken but don't harm anyone.

>>88259

>I will say that we currently live in an ideological ordered society though, the primary ideology being "equality" even where there is none. I think you may see where I'm going with the naturally ordered bit.

There is no such thing as a 'natural order' of society. Any order imposed on it is artificial and, if you like, ideological. Equality may not be a globally optimal solution, but at least it's locally optimal as it tends to minimize social conflicts.

>>88260

>Let the public decide what they like

This will automatically result in CP bans, at least in our society's current state.

>Legislating taste only creates more problems, overcrowds prisons, and distracts our attention from important matters. A clear line needs to be drawn between real crime and bad laws that are constantly broken but don't harm anyone.

True. Did I ever mention that laws are supposed to protect people instead of putting them under universal suspicion.

>>89706

When I say "the public" I mean individuals who make their own decisions, but they've gotta be free to do so without fear of reprisal or incarceration.

Getting back to laws and how they're enforced, I just remembered a story from a guy who flew to Israel, and he had an artificial knee that set off the metal detectors so they pulled him aside at airport security. After being asked only a few simple questions he was waved through, at which point he asked the guard how they knew he didn't have a weapon on him.

The guard looked confused and replied, "We're not looking for weapons. We're looking for terrorists."

Imagine how much more effective LE could be if they all agreed, "We're not concerned with porn. We're looking for rapists and kidnappers and other real criminals committing real crimes."

>>89767

You should think more critically, because you just made an invalid point. The point is, they still stopped him because he set off an alarm. Same with [child] porn. It is an alarm bell which triggers investigation. Child porn is also a record of a crime, so ignoring it would be negligent. You can try to dress up your 'logic' with analogies if you like, but at least try to make them valid.

>>88259

Fuck off

>>>/pol/

>>89767

If I understand your anecdote correctly, the idea is that the police shouldn't be looking for the instruments needed to commit a certain type of crime, but rather for the people who commit such a crime.

While that's definitely what they should (and definitely the way our executive system should work), I don't think this would be possible. Not because you cannot identify criminals; those who've already decided to commit a crime are identifyable in principle, those who haven't aren't of course. My main concern is effort. See, having people at an airport walk though metal detectors is easy. Their error rates are, for themselves, unacceptable; they say there are online tutorials how to create lethal diy weapons that don't contain any metal, using 3D printers. However, the more sophisticated you make the security measurements, the more time do they take, and at some point they will leave the airport inoperative.

It's almost the same with child porn. If the police had to perform sophisticated checks before they spring into action, that would render them inoperative. (Especially since it's usually not the brightest people that become police officers.) Interestingly, that's somehow what Sweden's police governor once expressed concerning Lolicon: Going after drawings and deliberating whether they meet the criteria for child porn helds up investigations into the production of real child porn, which is the thing that really causes problems.

So yes, legal enforcement could be very effective if it went after the producers of child porn instead of those who own/acquire it. But neglecting porn altogether would mean they have to limit themselves to other criteria. Which could be very time-consuming (or otherwise resource-intensive) to check. You cannot have every flight passenger go through deep psychological assessment before boarding. You cannot have every person on the internet go through deep psychological assessment before letting them post. In most cases, child porn is the only hint the police have.

I think criminalizing the possession of child porn is just plain wrong, worthless, and against the principle of freedom of information. I'm also convinced, however, that its production and dissemination is a crime for good reasons. (Acquiring it is at least morally questionable.) This opinion is based on the sad fact that most CP produced today is, said a retired prosecutor general, actually not intended to be child erotica but to satisfy the needs of reckless sadists who gloat over agony, balefulness, excruciation, pain. And that's what most children experience when such porn is produced: pain. We can talk about the sense behind legalization after this main problem has been mitigated.

Legislating taste is bullshit, but CP isn't actually all about taste anymore.

By the way, the vast majority of the public would (at least publicly) consider child porn plain wrong and to be banned, and vehement opinions by the vast majority of people like this tend to be made laws sooner or later. That's somehow the idea behind democracy. So democracy and individual responsibility are inconsistent with each other without an appropriate ideological foundation. Always remember, Hitler was elected democratically.

>>89767

>>89875

My main point is the importance of being realistic and as effective as possible, primarily in the case of laws and how they're enforced. Anything that doesn't involve force or fraud should be none of LE's business, but it's so easy for cops/agents/judges/politicians to keep playing hero going after anyone who upsets some group of oblivious easily-offended morons.

Long before the whole NSA data center news broke I'd heard that the FBI and other agencies were compiling a database of every known CP image. While the intention seems noble, to make it more easy to identify, locate, and possibly rescue victims, I can only assume it's not as useful as it could be, especially if it contains all NN and webcam images. That's a bottomless ocean I doubt any person or computer could ever search effectively (although technology does continue to amaze so...).

The best thing would be for LE to view most CP (namely any amateur hc stuff made within the last few years) as evidence that can helm them find and arrest a rapist. Currently it's legally considered hardly different from WMDs in as much as an armed squad will kick down your door, shoot your dog, throw your whole family on the floor, and trash your home looking for it if they think you're hiding some.

All this over pictures that somebody else took, which nobody profited from or got killed over? We don't go around arresting guys who watch terrorist beheading videos (actually those are still advertised by some in the media, especially if there's a war they want us to get behind). Why are images of naked or partially naked children treated entirely differently? On that note I'm interested in how those Dolce sites with a boy and girl in "suggestive" poses work out.

I'm sure there are those in LE who honestly believe they'll eventually rid the world of all CP. Even if they were to take down the net it would still exist, and if anything it would be far more valuable and still available on the black market. Time to consider other alternatives.

Many years ago all art was legal. Some was considered artistically rude and remained obscure and hard to find. No matter how hard you push it CP will never be as popular as any other despised fetish porn, like scat or piss drinking. In the visual realm nothing should be prohibited, however there is plenty you shouldn't have to show, hence the popularity of NN which has already been prosecuted (from Webe Web to Rebel Shooter and beyond). As long as physical crimes are being committed LE should be entirely unconcerned with what people view for entertainment at home for free, whether it's a movie, a video game, or some webm they found on a forum.

And it's correct that pics/vids of a child being raped IS a record of a crime. Go after whoever committed the crime in the image. Why bother with bystanders who witnessed it online long after it occurred? You can find Jon Benet Ramsey's autopsy photos. They're not worth seeing but they're available and easy to find just like an endless list of other stuff worth avoiding. The infamous R Kelly tape was so popular Chris Rock referenced it in detail for a bit, yet nobody's been sent away for viewing or watching it.

Clearly we've got a LOT of issues to figure out, and some consistency would help. The least we can do is keep the discussion going.

Simple: You can do anything to your wife. You can also do anything to an unmarried female of any age *if* her father's OK with it. If you talk to or touch a man's daughter without his permission, he can legally kill you.

If a girl has no father or other male relative acting as a father, she's fair game.

This board is about hebephilia.

>>90014

I don’t think you understand the concepts you are trying to defend. All the pictures on this site were stolen, the products of marketing children as sex objects, and/or coerced from children. Most people would agree that viewing images is not as heinous a crime as actually producing it, but that is no excuse for allowing it to continue. Worse still, there is no sympathy for people that can get pleasure from someone else’s pain. That alone tosses out any moral high ground a pedo might use to validate their actions. There is a reason that pedophiles are one of the most reviled groups in the world. The mental gymnastics they perform on a daily basis to make themselves feel normal and misunderstood is evidence enough that their denial constitutes a break with reality. And the fact that they risk jail for a glimpse of little girls being exploited, scantily clad, and/or being abused says volumes about their character.

>>89875

>Always remember, Hitler was elected democratically.

I really hate it when people say things like that; like it validates whatever their particular convictions are. It really doesn’t. Reductio ad Hitlerum is just a way of trying to shut down other people’s arguments while elevating their own.

>>90167

Being sexually attracted to someone does not turn them into an object. You're confusing sex for coercion.

also, have you ever heard of sexting?

>>90216

The moment you came to this site in search of little girls for your personal pleasure, you started treating them like objects.

>>90219

Sexting is generally mutual (both parties are aware and engaged in the activity), whereas fapping to little girls on the internet is again, treating them like objects for your pleasure.

Getting back to the original question, girls today create and distribute most of what's legally classified as cp by innocently posting images of themselves, often without considering all consequences. The big decision going forward is whether or not we wanna allow their lives to all be ruined by charging them and those who view them as sexually dangerous felons. What better reason to stay informed and vote more than once every 4 years.

It's almost a new year. Figure out some way to make a real difference IRL. Otherwise this time next year we're all gonna still be here yelling at each other.

>>90418

There is already significant movement to reduced or even remove the criminality of posting selfies in most states. And children under 13 already have legal protections for doing so. The few instances we hear about are the extreme cases and they account for less than .001% of all CP convictions according to the FBI site.

If you are not automatically guilty for having CP either. If it can be proven that you deleted content, do not seek it out, and do not produce/distribute it, then you're typically fine. Again, it is VERY rare that innocent people get convicted of CP for one or two images which have been deleted. A good example are phones. They change IP's so much it's near impossible to track what someone is downloading unless they stay in one spot for hours a day (like home or book store). If you erase the image, again, it's nearly impossible to recover it unless you send it to the FBI labs and that only happens in really big criminal cases. Otherwise, police are limited to a few forensic tools. If you're caught it's generally going to be because your trading, sharing, or someone sees what your doing like family, co-worker, or tech support. In which case, it REALLY implies guilt and you are screwed.

The people here are, for the most part, paranoid conspiracy theorists due to the fact they feel guilty, feel society is against them, and generally have to keep their lives a secret. They believe they'll get vanned any moment... there's a name for that level of paranoia and it's PTSD.

So, to answer your question. There are a lot of people trying to protect children by passing laws, reducing criminality, and dismissing cases against them. The rare cases we hear about are just that, rare (according to court/FBI records). As for pedos. They are adults, should know better, and by seeking out, trading, and generally encouraging the distribution of CP, are guilty.

if I had a dollar for every time a cry baby moralfag made empty threats/implications "you're gonna get caught" "enjoy your ass rape in jail pedo" etc etc id look down on billionaires as paupers

>>90168

I really hate it when people refuse to think thoroughly about what went wrong in history because they think any such argument is a thought-terminating cliché.

Hiter WAS elected democratically. You're invited to discuss whether at all this is comparable to the context this comparison is applied to, and you're also invited to discuss whether that democratic election Hitler won actually met the requirements for being truly called "democratic".

But refusing it because "it validates whatever their particular convictions are" doesn't really help. For instance, the people of Crimea democratically voted for joining Russia. In some respect, it's the same situation as with Hitler. (Well, I don't want to imply you should compare Russia to Hitler, though. We don't know yet where all of this is going to lead.)

But Hitler's election does show that democracy is indeed able to destroy itself. And applied in that context, it's not "Reductio ad Hitlerum".

>>90014

Yeah, I agree with that.

I'd already be satisfied if the public managed to straighten out whether they're talking about pedophiles or child molesters/rapists. I'm confoundedly tired of hearing people say pedophile when they're actually talking about some child rape, or say child rapist when they're talking about pedophiles in general. Since at least Marc Dutroux it should be clear that there's a significant gap between the two.

>CP will never be as popular as any other despised fetish porn, like scat or piss drinking.

While I don't actually know how popular despised fetish porn is, I have heard several times that the global CP market has a turnover more than ~ten times higher compared with international drug trafficking, which I'd suppose to be at least as large as any market for conventional fetish porn.

Those, however, who contribute to that huge turnover are mostly not pedophiles but simply sadists. Another reason why the public should be educated about the crucial difference between child molestation and being a pedophile.

Remove all rights females have.

Kill or enslave any female over 19

Rape is legal

Kill all fags

Fathers must start being sexually active with their daughters by 2 full penetration by 7

Men can marry up to 10 girls

Child porn is legal

Beating girls to death is legal

If a man kills another mans baby cunt he will let that man pick from his baby cunt clan or pay a fine

Anyone haboring female over 19 will be sentenced to death.

Fathers can sell or trade his daugters to men

You can do full penetration on baby cunts

Any girl who miscarries, attempts abortion or gets an abortion will be brutally raped and tortured then killed.

>>90524

Thank you for reminding me of some other important points. Many of those who think they're the only thing standing between children and evil too often blow things way out of proportion. There's no need to exaggerate facts or invent outrageous statistics, but they do because they're so blinded by rage and bloodthirsty for vengeance (see Ron Book and John Walsh) that they can't be reasoned with.

One of the most common useless exaggerations is this bad habit of referring to high schoolers and even college freshmen as children instead of young adults. By continually raising the age of majority and constantly keeping young people convinced they'll always be dependent victims they're creating exactly what they claim to be against.

On the global CP "market" most of what I've read suggests it was never very lucrative (certainly nowhere close to the drugs or arms trades) and now that there are so many alternatives (ie NN and loli) there are fewer incentives to try and profit from the rape and exploitation of children, which is a good thing I wish they'd talk more about in mainstream media, but obviously I'm not holding my breath.

Last but certainly not least, one crucial difference between pedos and molesters is that the latter group is almost exclusively made up of guys who are most strongly attracted to adult females (unless they're gay) and whose victims are almost always their own children, not total strangers they met in public or online (sorry, Chris Hansen). But try to explain inconvenient facts to someone who just wants to get more bad laws passed and maybe get themselves some fame and/or praise.

>>90761

you're fucking stupid, kill yourself.

>>90538

ow, the edge careful don't cut yourself man.

>>90776

Um no. I am fighting for men's rights here.

Totally depends on the skills of the adminstritation and the society in question.

>Rescind suffrage.

>Only land owners may vote.

>Father acts as legal head of family unless he is unconscious or unavailable or he passes legal right to the wife.

>End no fault divorce must have reason for divorce along with proof if you have no proof your spouse can file for divorce and they will owe you nothing.

>Legal age of consent is abolished.

>We would have a testing schema required for proof of knowledge and participants in any contract under specific checkpoint ages would have legal ways to escape contracts they signed until the age of 24 if they so pleased.

>Adultery laws are back on the books.

>Fornication and buggery laws back on the books too.

The ideal is a society where you can have a loliwaifu that isn't tainted by other people's ideas and exists to be yours and only yours she will bare your children and love only you or she will be cast down. Of course forced marriage aint cool so there would be a function of CPS to make sure no dowry was exchanged for these girls and that they accept this choice and the father must sign off on it too but the girl is free to decide for herself at 14. we would not allow marriage of girls under 5 and girls under 10 would require a proof of menarche to be legally married.

I would also invest in renewable energy and robotics development so we could have basic income for all.

New rule: whoever keeps posting those pizza links needs to eat a dick and die.

>>90613

I don't see either how the CP "market" should be able to make money at all; maybe it's due to those people who actually pay for "premium user" membership of file-hosting sites where the CP some of the notorious bots on 8chan are so keen at promoting is uploaded. Nevertheless, I've heard a retired attorney of state say on television that the global CP market has exploded and still is, making said amounts of money.

Attorneys of state and police officers aren't the worst-informed people into this subject. At least they usually know what they're talking about and that they have to draw clear lines. That's at least what the police governor of I think it was Sweden once said: Tossing too much into illegality as "child porn" just makes it harder for the police to take care of those pictures and videos that are REALLY a problem. Not even speaking of the actual crimes behind them.

>one crucial difference between pedos and molesters is that the latter group is almost exclusively made up of guys who are most strongly attracted to adult females (unless they're gay) and whose victims are almost always their own children

Yes, that's what I've head, along with that those people are actually sadists who take pleasure in torturing children because of the torturing and the children's inability to defend themselves, and not really because of them being underage.

>>91516

Right on with the last comment. Even in my fantasies I can't cum unless the girl does, and I'd like to think all real hebes/pedos take pleasure in the happiness and joy of children (or at least girls), not from pain or suffering. So now we have another clear distinction to make.

>>94271

>>94271

Speak for yourself fag I would torture little girls for fun.

>>90879

You ideas are fucking retarded. You must be a pathetic dunbass living in a backwards country.