OneMore wrote:
Your argument is that if 2 16 year olds can legally have sex, then it should be ok to make and distribute indecent images of a 16 year old, and I thoroughly disagree with that.
No, that's not my argument at all.
The reason he's in trouble is because she's legally classified as a child with respect to the distribution of a photograph.
But she is not legally classified as a child for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.
Does that not seem illogical to you?
WeeWorld wrote:
No, that's not my argument at all.
The reason he's in trouble is because she's legally classified as a child with respect to the distribution of a photograph.
But she is not legally classified as a child for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.
Does that not seem illogical to you?
I don't think there is any reference to being an adult in the age of consent laws. While a child is defined in law as under 18.
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
WeeWorld wrote:
No, that's not my argument at all.
The reason he's in trouble is because she's legally classified as a child with respect to the distribution of a photograph.
But she is not legally classified as a child for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.
Does that not seem illogical to you?
I don't think there is any reference to being an adult in the age of consent laws. While a child is defined in law as under 18.
The real problem for me is that he should not have been having sex with her, she was too young.
That's what the criminal offence should have been, however in western society today that is not a problem, apparently.
So be it, but it's hypocritical of the law to turn around afterwards and prosecute him over the photo.
If the law considers someone to be too young to have a photo of their sex act passed around then the real problem is not the picture.
WeeWorld wrote:
No, that's not my argument at all.
The reason he's in trouble is because she's legally classified as a child with respect to the distribution of a photograph.
But she is not legally classified as a child for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.
Does that not seem illogical to you?
I don't think there is any reference to being an adult in the age of consent laws. While a child is defined in law as under 18.
The real problem for me is that he should not have been having sex with her, she was too young.
That's what the criminal offence should have been, however in western society today that is not a problem, apparently.
So be it, but it's hypocritical of the law to turn around afterwards and prosecute him over the photo.
If the law considers someone to be too young to have a photo of their sex act passed around then the real problem is not the picture.
Hand me up that spade, and I'll help you climb out of that hole before it gets any deeper.
“It was a bizarre happening, an unprecedented situation, a grotesque situation, an almost unbelievable mischance.”
WeeWorld wrote:
The real problem for me is that he should not have been having sex with her, she was too young.
That's what the criminal offence should have been, however in western society today that is not a problem, apparently.
So be it, but it's hypocritical of the law to turn around afterwards and prosecute him over the photo.
If the law considers someone to be too young to have a photo of their sex act passed around then the real problem is not the picture.
When I was 16 I'd much prefer to have had sex with somebody of adult age than for them to release pictures of me in a state of undress. I suspect the majority would have a similar idea.
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.