Small women and sexuality

[FoolKiller]

Would you date a woman of that size? Would you be comfortable having sex with that woman if you two wanted to take your relationship to that level?

The answer is yes, I want to sleep with Ellen Page.

I would probably break her in two though

 

[Maze1125]

It could quite easily be argued that having someone who looks like a minor and pretends to be one for the camera is as bad as having an actual minor in front of the camera.

How? How on Earth can it be as bad?

If you put an actual child "in front of a camera" then it's an actual child that's being hurt and abused. If you don't, then there isn't a child being abused.

Yes, it can be argued that simulated child porn is bad, but it cannot be argued that it is as bad as real child porn, because it is factually not. (Unless you don't think that a child being abused is bad.)

No one mentioned hurting anyone. That's another story entirely. But as mentioned in my prior post, it is *not* an issue of consent or even of actual child abuse. That is not the question being posed (since the issue of actual children in adult films is unarguably and comprehensively answered already). The issue is that of child porn and feeding the lusts of paedophiles. In this regard, there is no difference between someone who is 15 and looks their age, or someone who is 20 and looks like/is being passed off as 15.

So you propose having the exact same punishment for someone who watches a sex film with a 15 year old as someone who watches a sex film with a 20 year-old in who looks 15?

 

[JoJo]

No one mentioned hurting anyone. That's another story entirely. But as mentioned in my prior post, it is *not* an issue of consent or even of actual child abuse. That is not the question being posed (since the issue of actual children in adult films is unarguably and comprehensively answered already). The issue is that of child porn and feeding the lusts of paedophiles. In this regard, there is no difference between someone who is 15 and looks their age, or someone who is 20 and looks like/is being passed off as 15.

Since you ignored me the last time I quoted you, I'll repeat myself: paedophilia is defined as an attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction to a 15 year old could at worst be defined as hebephilia but even that would be borderline since hebephilia is more often defined as an attraction to 11 to 14 year olds who have just reached puberty. There is no way our hypothetical 23 year old 'Trudy' would look anything like prepubescent, however petit she is, so paedophilia has nothing to do with this. Despite sex with 15, 16 and 17 year olds being illegal in some countries, an attraction to those ages is commonly found in the normal adult population and so pornography featuring adults who appear a few years younger than their actual age is not encouraging anything that isn't pathologically normal.

Aside from all that, the Australian law must be a nightmare to enforce since who's to say whether someone looks 17, or 18, or 19? Under UK or US law, whether someone's guilty or not is as simple as checking a birthdate against the date that filming took place, no grey area. Judging how old someone looks is far more subjective, too subjective in my mind for a conviction that will hugely damage someone's life.

 

[Callate]

As a society, can we tell smaller or more petite women that they can't be sexual just because they look too much like minors and MIGHT be titillating pedo or ephebophiles?

Well, sure. We can tell people anything. We can call any woman who shows her ankles or goes out without four layers of petticoats a whore, if we want to go that route.

But just to be clear- there's some area between saying a young-looking (but above the legal age of consent) can't engage in sex in private and saying there's a problem with such a woman performing sex acts in pornography; perhaps more to the point, there's a difference between such a woman performing in pornography and a director intentionally trying to make that performance appeal on the basis of the woman's less-than-mature appearance.

And yes, many porn creators would try to capitalize on that- heaven knows there's an excessive number amount of adult material that tries to cater on the basis of so-called "barely legal" performers. And yes, Australia's law is kind of excessively broad and likely to be interpreted in wildly different ways by different persons.

As for the later questions, of course some people will be judgmental; some people actively look for opportunities to be so. That said, one would think any reasonable person would note that the pedophile who indulges their impulses solely with a person above the age of consent isn't the problem.

Tangentially related- I have a young-looking friend who got a lecture from some self-righteous imbecile in a department store because she assumed she was a teenager and that the presence of her children meant she was a single mother and a leech on society... Talk about jumping to conclusions. Said friend is married, employed, and in her thirties. It's probably as well I wasn't there; I might have been inclined to tear the woman apart, and possibly not verbally.

 

[Summerstorm]

The law isn't stopping Trudi in that example from having whatever sex life she chooses. She simply cannot be in an adult film for the sole purpose of titillating (ie. porn). I don't see any issue with that. It could quite easily be argued that having someone who looks like a minor and pretends to be one for the camera is as bad as having an actual minor in front of the camera. This *isn't* an issue of consent or even causing harm to minors, the issue is child porn.
PS. This should be in R&P, not OT.

MAN, how i disagree with this... strongly.

So you can't do a job you'd like, because you look off? (Well, we would love to give you this job, but the government says we can't do it)

This is VERY different of trying to do what you want and are simply not ABLE (You can't drive a jet, you'll black out, you can't teach history, you are an idiot etc.) to: There is a market, someone will even PAY you to do it... but you are not allowed?

So you want to start up pottery at home? TOO BAD, the government says your feet are too small for that.
You want to work as a welder? TOO BAD, the government says you have the wrong religion for that.
You want to act in a movie the part of an old mentor of a young knight? TOO BAD, the government says you look too old for that.

Seriously though: The limitations and arbitary rules are bad as they are now... we really shouldn't refine and improve on burocreacy and inhuman law.

WE DECIDE what is wrong.
So a girl aged 15 years 363/365 days makes love to an older gentleman (21 year): BURN THE RAPIST, protect the children
Two days later: Eh, tasteless but a-ok?
A year earlier: Child rape
2 Years later: Normal couple?
When and how does it change? Do our birthdays imbue us with magical wisdom and analytical intelligence?

Unfocussed rant over!

My point is that the rules of limiting our freedoms with age-restrictions to protect our minors is just a system we allow to work, because it is convenient, if unfair. We just cannot particularly know when someone is ready to drink, decide on drugs, look for a partner etc. So we, as communities take a safe stance and bring in "estimated rules" Those include sometimes bloody STUPID ones, because our community is not really representative. (Also a lot of people differ in opinions).

I am really in favour of deciding case-to-case and not trying blanket-restrict ANYTHING which you don't understand or don't like.

(One of the reasons i will protect the "Guro", "Loli", "Furry", "Rape", "Whatever" - Artists/Fans; Who am i to limit their freedom to produce/enjoy something?)

In short: Don't exploit and rape kids... when do kids stop being kids and can WILLINGLY let thmeselves exploited? - WHO THE HELL knows, have to see case by case. Assume Age limitations satisfactionary for now. Don't shackle your citizens with crappy laws.

 

[SadakoMoose]

These sorts of laws are the results of people who grew up with laws but never really learned the reasoning and compromises behind them getting into powert and never really becoming self-aware.

Hey, I agree with most of what you said about law needing purpose and meaning beyond the surface level and all, but please leave the "autism" comment out of it. I know some people with autism spectrum disorders, and by and large they have more common sense than many legislators.

 

[TekMoney]

I would rather pedophiles have access to a sort of "release" than be forced to engage in potential statutory rape.

I'm sorry. What? Forced to?

 

[Naeras]

If people make a deal out of it because pedophiles might be turned on by it, they have completely misunderstood why pedophilia can be problematic. The problem isn't that people get turned on by young-looking individuals. The issue is freaking child pornography and statutory rape. Anyone who pulls a "hurr durr but morals"-card in this discussion needs to consider this: if a pedophile are wacking it to someone who looks like she might be 16, rather than watching child pornography, then the world just became a slightly better place.

How is this even an issue? =.=;

 

[Abomination]

I would rather pedophiles have access to a sort of "release" than be forced to engage in potential statutory rape.

I'm sorry. What? Forced to?

I clarify what I mean by this in the second paragraph below.

If they seek to satisfy their urges they're SOL if they want to do it legally.

I consider the act of being a pedophile the same as being heterosexual or homosexual - you can not choose who you are attracted to. It's entirely possible to be a pedophile and satisfy your urges in a non-harmful manner without harming anyone. If "teen" porn is illegal then there's no way for them to do so without breaking the law.

Considering how even possession of what is deemed as "underage" porn can lead to some very hefty prison terms and being labelled a sex offender (for not even offending anyone sexually) why bother with the small stuff when you might as well have "the real prize"?

 

[waj9876]

I would rather pedophiles have access to a sort of "release" than be forced to engage in potential statutory rape.

I'm sorry. What? Forced to?

I think they're just saying they'd rather people have outlets to those desires than have the only way to...act on said desires be to...act on actual minors.

 

[Artina89]

Define "looks younger". My height and weight are exactly the same as "Trudy's", and occasionally people ask me what year of high school I'm in, only to apparently get their mind blown when I tell them I'm in my third year of university. That said, I also often meet people who act equally surprised when I tell them I get mistaken for a fifteen year old, telling me I look exactly my age.

The closest thing I've come to experiencing discrimination is getting carded all the time. I don't mind or anything. It's difficult to tell someone's age just by looking. It only gets awkward when some stranger starts hitting on me while I'm at work or in public, and I can't help but wonder whether they're one of the people who think I look twenty or one of the ones who think I look fifteen.

That sort of thing happens to me all the time. I am 5'2, and quite a few people seem to think that I am around the age of 16, and are subsequently surprised when I tell them that I have graduated from university and am currently in full time employment, and have been for nearly two years. It can get tiresome having to show bartenders identification when I want to get a drink, but at the end of the day they are just doing their job.

 

[Someone Depressing]

If she's the age of consent and isn't riddled with everything transmitable under the sun, then why can't she do what she wants? Even if she does have a laundry list of STIs, then she can do what she wants.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This *isn't* an issue of consent or even causing harm to minors, the issue is child porn.

But those are by far the two largest issues with child porn. Those two things are the reason it's illegal and drawn images are generally not.

OT:
Pretty goddamn ridiculous.

Appearances can be incredibly deceiving and when we start ruling legally based on how something looks without any regard of actual evidence, law is dead.

snip

I see this a lot and no one ever bothers to give evidence to support their argument.

At this point I pretty much view anyone screaming "PORN IS BAD!!!" on the same level as I view creationists.

Also this.

Evidence is almost never brought up and when it is, it's lots of assumption based nonsense and poorly researched TedX talks.

 

[Zombie Sodomy]

It's pretty superficial to assume that anyone is only dating someone else because of looks without more information. The guy dating a girl who looks 13 could be just as creeped out about it as you are, but he still really likes her and wants to make it work anyways. Even if he does find that attractive, so what? He didn't chose to be a pedophile/ephebophile. The only thing he has control over is whether or not he fucks kids, and as long as he doesn't do that he's OK in my book.

 

[Eddie the head]

Another person with that mindset huh? I really do not see how porn is more damaging to women than beneficial to society. Heck, I don't see how porn is damaging at all. Furthermore, have you ever stopped to consider that you don't have to be a paedophile to enjoy young looking women? You can just be young yourself. Or actually be attracted by young women. If an 18 year old is allowed to marry a 50 year old, why can't that same 50 year old watch porn with an 18 year old in it?

They can in countries where it's legal.

If you don't see how porn is damaging at all then you're eyes are closed. You can google for articles and many reports on the subject. In short, it, particularly now that it's freely available on the Internet for minors to find, creates people with unrealistic expectations of sex, skewed views of the opposite sex and their own, it is the most demeaning and derogatory, most sexist treatment of women who are nothing more than a collection of body parts, objects for men to use and abuse for their sexual gratification.

Yeah that's pretty much the same argument people put forward when they say video games make people more violent. Believe it or not most people can in fact tell the difference between real life and media. And the people that can't are craze, or religious. (I mean come on do you really think the world was created in 7 days?) That's a hard sell to convince anyone that it's that damaging. Frankly if you want to convince other people you're right your going to need to do a hell of a lot better then an appeal to an anonymous authority.

 

[Senare]

...
If you don't see how porn is damaging at all then you're eyes are closed. You can google for articles and many reports on the subject. In short, it, particularly now that it's freely available on the Internet for minors to find, creates people with unrealistic expectations of sex, skewed views of the opposite sex and their own, it is the most demeaning and derogatory, most sexist treatment of women who are nothing more than a collection of body parts, objects for men to use and abuse for their sexual gratification.
...

KingsGambit: Google fu aside, could you please point me to some sources to start out with?

Two thoughts for the rest of the thread:

1. It may be that paedophiles and similar leanings could sate their lusts with "fake" child pornography and that this would reduce risks for real child molestation. But when I think about it, couldn't it be as likely that a steady source of such material would increase that side so that the risks for child molestation might increase? Without proper research I feel that either case could be true and that this should be considered.

2. The increased acceptance of such material may create a bigger market for it. This can create unintended consequences.
For example a grey area of the market could appear where it is hard to impossible to assure that all actors are indeed of legal age, thus opening up for exploitation of children because not all material can be checked. Banning all porn with actors that simply "look young" would certainly work against such a trend (however likely or unlikely that trend may be).
The bigger market may also serve to further sexualize teenagers. I am not saying that this would be bad because of some misguided notion that "teenagers should not be allowed to be sexual". But it may be bad because children in general typically need more room/less pressure to grow and the added sexualization may hamper this. There is already a lot of pressure regarding sex among teenagers.
Of course further research (or maybe references to already completed research) are needed to support any of my guesswork. But it's worth to think about.

Finally: Not all paedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are paedophiles.