|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 1:31 pm: |
Is 21 the legal drinking age for every state in the US? The UK is 18, right? What about France? I've heard that in bars, it's generally 16 but no age limit to purchase alcohol in a market. Why is the US so damn uptight about everything? We should have stayed a colony!
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 1:26 pm: |
Unless you're gay where gay sex and drink are now considered both equally as the worst vice (that is since the age of legal gay sex was lowered from 21 to 18).
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:40 pm: |
We are getting way off topic but the age of consent for different activities is rather odd. Over here in the UK we can bang our mates 16 year old daughter without fear of the law (unless we also happen to be her teacher when we could be jailed). Then we could take a family holiday and in at least two european countries start over again with her 14 year old sister without fear of prosecution. We also have the amusing situation where our 17 year old siblings could enlist in the army and be expected to shoot on command but could not legally down a drink in a pub afterwards or (and this is really funny) watch a violent film rated '18'. So over here it is really shag, shoot and drink. I believe that over in the US it is shoot, shag and drink? Either way alcohol seems to be regarded as the worst vice.
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 12:13 pm: |
Exactly, and nobody can really oppose this type of legislation without being labeled as a proponent of kiddie porn. I believe that there was something in the news last year about someone being prosecuted for either animated or computer generated images of underage girls. I think that he was originally convicted and then it was overturned since there was no actual victim, but Ashcroft was still pushing for the legislation.
If I had sex with a blowup doll that had a voice box that said "no, stop" , would that be considered rape?
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 8:58 am: |
In a somewhat recent case in the USA, someone had in his house child images he had photocopied from books in the public library.
However, since he had other child porn in his possesion, the Government decided that, "in that context", images publicly avalaible were child porn.
In "that context" the Sears catalog (underage girls wearing lingerie) would be child porn.
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 8:28 am: |
Would my copy of Trainspotting then be considered kiddie porn, since the character Diane (played by a twentysomething actress) was an underage schoolgirl?
In the USA, all porn has to have a disclaimer of record location, and as of 1995 it has to show whether the sex acts were filmed prior to the law mandating safe sex practices in all porn. There is always an address where all model releases are kept, with proof of age kept at that address. It is the responsibility of the producer, not the viewer, for traditionally bought videos/dvds.
Now, as you mentioned, internet porn has no such regulation tied to it, and in this current witchhunt environment, anyone with images could be held liable.
Let's say that I go to a legit "over 18" site, and during the registration process, a pop-up ad opens on my computer with a known minor. I could be held accountable and prosecuted under the current laws, since I had the image on my computer. Scary.
Even worse is getting porn from file-sharing programs like KaZaa or BearShare, since there is NO RECORD of where it originated. You D/L'ed it, it's yours, and you must've wanted it. Even Scarier.
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 8:08 am: |
The start of a very slippery slope. Does it then follow that if your 25 year old girlfriend willingly ties her hair in pigtails and dresses up in a school-girl uniform and she lets you shag her that you could be up in court for sexual intercourse with someone who on that ocassion was dressed a minor? If you took a photograph of your girlfriend dressed like this would you be guilty of pedophilia?
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 2:33 am: |
16? Here in the USSA, it's generally 18 - unless you commit a crime at 16 years of age, in which case the prosecutor will claim that you have magically become an adult and must be put on trial as one.
As for the image thing, the news story that I heard made it sound like a photo of a shaved 18 year-old with pigtails and a lollypop could spell trouble even in was not disputed that she was, in fact, 18 - just the *illusion* of being "too young" was the deciding factor. The implications are chilling on many levels beyond sexual preference...
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 1:50 am: |
"U.S. law seems to be swaying towards criminalizing the posession of images that just "look" like underage girls, even if they are actually over legal age"
How do you know they aren't underage when you view them? Because the website makes the claim that all its models are not underage? (And we all know how honest web-site porn-merchants are). Can someone get off the hook by claiming that they didn't know the images were underage because the web-site told them so (even though the models appeared not yet old enough to have developed breasts or pubic hair)?
And how does the law determine what an underage girl looks like? Will there be complicated legal arguments about whether a girl looks 16 and 1 day old or 15 and 364 days old?
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 1:37 am: |
Geeez, if you had sex with a dead animal I wonder if the UK would consider reinstating the death penalty?
U.S. law seems to be swaying towards criminalizing the posession of images that just "look" like underage girls, even if they are actually over legal age - I wonder if sex with a stuffed animal would be considered beastiality?
Can this thread be saved from the Monkey Hole?
|Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 1:22 am: |
They want to pass laws against both bestiality and necrophilia? What ever happened to tolerance?
|Posted on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 3:47 am: |
On second thoughts maybe I wont e-mail the Home Office. They may think "Why is this guy so interested in this? Why does he want to know? Perhaps we should put him on our list of potential sex offenders and keep tabs on him."
|Posted on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 3:43 am: |
That's odd because Chapter 6 of the new Sex Offences bill that the Government is putting before Parliament implies otherwise. It would seem that there is currently no law against necrophilia either.
Perhaps the Zoo-cash.com website got it wrong or perhaps the relevant sections of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 and 1967 have been repealed? If not then it seems that our current government is proposing to crack down on offences such as bestiality by reducing the maximum sentence for offenders from 30 years to 2 years.
I might try e-mailing the Home Office for an explanation.
|Posted on Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 1:52 am: |
Um, I did some checking, and see that you recently ordered a Monkey online.
After reading the current thread, I and the United Moralists Association find your comments most disturbing.
One of our associates will be knocking at your door in . . . roughly 15 minutes. If you willingly surrender the Monkey and allow yourself to be committed to our care, all will be well. If not . . . well, let's say you don't want to know.
|Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 11:47 am: |
BTW, I just looked at the homepage of the site I linked to, and I'm not going to sleep very well tonight.
|Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 11:44 am: |
I found that very hard to believe, so I looked.
This site claims you can get life imprisonment, under the Sexual Offenses Acts of 1956 and 1967... has the law changed?
Not that I desperately need to know or anything.
|Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
Sticking it in a monkey's hole is perfectly legal in the UK at the moment just so long as you are in legal possession of the monkey.
|Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 12:23 am: |
Is that a command for us to stick it in a monkey's hole?
|Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 1:06 pm: |
No, greenie, you sleep with Tom, I'll sleep with Nicole.
You can strangle him afterward if you'd like. Or before, whatever turns yer crank.
Speaking of turning cranks, is Headly laHead still at Club 17? . . . and should this be cast into the Hole of Monkeys?
|Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 1:04 pm: |
I know they're divorced. Nicole being involved was a command, not a statement of an expected condition.
Who can blame her?
Now, if Ewan McGregor came along . . .
|Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 8:10 am: |
Lead vitamins. Thanx Trainer, and thank God for Depends!
|Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 5:04 am: |
Traineraz, news flash: Tom and Nicole are divorced. I think they're both hot.
|Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 2:54 am: |
Sleep with Nicole and strangle Tom, do I have that right? ;-)
|Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 10:47 pm: |
Let`s call it ''natural elimination of stupidity''.
Drinking 9 well watered absinthes within 9 hours can be, let`s admit it, a lot of fun if done not too often.
Drinking it in straight shots one after the other is of course very dangerous.
Drinking 9 straight shot of Czech donkey piss is very deadly to say the least... I couldn`t go through 9 tea spoons of Starop without throwing it up !
|Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 9:54 pm: |
Green, you WILL TOO sleep with that closet case Tom Cruise. I COMMAND IT!
You will also videotape the event, considering that Nicole Kidman must be involved!
Yes, I like men, but I'd take Nicole Kidman over Tom "little man" Cruise any day. She be hot, he be not.