Curious George wrote: A few years ago an exception was made in the state of Georgia. An 18 year old black male , was at a party and a 15 year old white girl got drunk and stoned. Bubba popped her cherry on the pool table. He was arrested for rape. But the media and political activists complained, because he was a star running back in High School. He could be a star player in college. So the state changed the law. If a teenager is only 3 years older than the girl, it is OK to pop her cherry. Ignore the fact that she was too drunk to say no.

Hi George,

Where is my old good Dixieland and my old friend Jim Crow?

Eintracht wrote:
Another note: For the Prague Circus, Ricardo and other people who do want the best for Pierre, it is a GODSENT PRESENT that some dumbasses are discussing the pros of underage porn in Pierre's forum! You smart guys should also consider that!

Good point.
At the moment Giorgio Grandi definitely can not believe his luck.

Speaking it's not acting ... so I don't know what you mean with :

At the moment Giorgio Grandi definitely can not believe his luck.

but I don't see the problem to discuss about any subject until they are not against the law.

PW

Some of you are jumping to ridiculous conclusions about me. It's wrong and I resent it. I have no desire to touch a girl under 18 and have never done it except when I was a teenager myself. I don't understand why anyone would say that based on my posts. All I said was that I didn't understand why the age requirement for porn should be higher then the age of consent for sex. My proposal is that a change should be considered only because girls mature sooner and start having sex sooner now. (Pierre knows this very well). Despite that the age requirement for porn has never changed. As I said, todays 15 year old or at least a 16 year old is probably equivalent to an 18 year old 50 years ago. I certainly admit that I would love to see girls 2 or 3 years younger then 18 in porn as long as they are treated well, however now that is not possible since the law says 18. That doesn't mean that I lust after girls under 18 or try to touch or get sex from a girl under 18. I do not. I hate pedophiles and I hate child pornography.

boa15 wrote:I certainly admit that I would love to see girls 2 or 3 years younger then 18 in porn as long as they are treated well, however now that is not possible since the law says 18. That doesn't mean that I lust after girls under 18 or try to touch or get sex from a girl under 18. I do not. I hate pedophiles and I hate child pornography.

Dude, are you serious?

No offence, but what you want, it's to break the last limit that prevent us from total porn anarchy. Folks from any age nowadays can watch almost every deviance possible on the net, thousands of "tags" exist on the tubes, it have impact on the way they view sexuality, they talk about it in school/highschool/fac/work ect. You got ados that think: "omg, i saw that on tube, i would like to try !", and it's like that things evoluate, too fast. If you want to start to reduce the legal age limit of porn, just because they start to experimate things more sooner, it will be more and more below, as Eintracht said it. The law is well made on that, and the yougn can't moderate themselve when they discover all this big mess on internet. So the big "18" is fine and is here to support us, if you start to modify that it will be pure bordelo. Girls mature sooner ? Yes true, but what will happen if they mature more sooner ? Reduce the limit every 10 years ? It's a circle for total anarchy.

Dude ( Patbah77 ), you are obviously not serious and not intelligent. I have never tried to watch any porn that is not legal and never will. I am strongly against child porn and would reject it if it was offered to me. I have no interest. All I said was I believe the age requirement for porn should be looked at and consideration should be given to lower it because girls mature younger today and start having sex sooner. I'm sure Pierre knows that many years ago there was a girl of 14 years old who got a fake ID and was able to get hired for a job doing porn and performed in porn. Her name escapes me at the moment. When I found out about that and had the opportunity to watch her porn, I did not. I obey the law. I do have the right however to advocate for a change in the law. If people don't agree with me and it seems that most people don't the law will not change. That's fine with me. As I said, I don't touch underage girls and don't have any desire to do so. It's wrong and insulting for you to insinuate that I would. Pierre this guy should be thrown out for attempting to smear and slander me. Regarding the latest post by jean, apparently most people seem to share your view and disagree with my proposal. However I should have the right to express my opinion without being slandered by patbah77.

boa15 wrote:Dude ( Patbah77 ), you are obviously not serious and not intelligent. [...]However I should have the right to express my opinion without being slandered by patbah77.

It's kind of ironic being called "not intelligent" by someone who is able to contradict himself in two consecutive sentences as proven above.

Concerning your most recent statement: You are basically saying that the only reason for you not watching the kind of porn you're advocating for in here is because it's illegal. In fact you've even admitted, that this is the very reason why you're making your alarming and disturbing argument to legalise it. You WANT it to be legal so you can finally follow your urges.

I do not "insinuate" anything. I said that lusting after 15 or 16 year old girls is neither sane nor normal, especially not for a guy your age. And you feeling the need to watch them do porn is EXACTLY that, its almost like the textbook definiton. I think this is what most us are trying to make you realise in here, obviously to no avail so far.

Because for you, Eintracht, myself and others are apparently "smearing" and "slandering" you for pointing out the obvious here.

t's kind of ironic being called "not intelligent" by someone who is able to contradict himself in two consecutive sentences as proven above.

Agree with that !!!

PW

Ok, so lets slice this big pile of bullshit in smaller pieces to be able to respond to it.

boa15 wrote:Dude ( Patbah77 ), you are obviously not serious and not intelligent. I have never tried to watch any porn that is not legal and never will.

This is almost a rational thought. You are proposing the lowering of todays age of consent to be able to watch underage porn legally, because THEN it is legal. Understood.

boa15 wrote: All I said was I believe the age requirement for porn should be looked at and consideration should be given to lower it because girls mature younger today and start having sex sooner.

Well developing the urge to have sex and the legally briefed right so show of their coochie and rest it eternally in the endless dungeon of the internet are two completely different things. An old bloke like you should recognize the difference, presumed you have not yet made your brain an green slimy mass of jelly from decade long boozing and masturbation.

boa15 wrote:I obey the law. I do have the right however to advocate for a change in the law.

But we dont have the right to call your opinion the bullshit it is?

boa15 wrote: That's fine with me. As I said, I don't touch underage girls and don't have any desire to do so.

But you would like to watch them ... when its legalized. Right?

boa15 wrote:Pierre this guy should be thrown out for attempting to smear and slander me.

Well, a few days ago I would have agreed with you on that point ( sorry patbah77 ) but today I have to tell you that you should stop whining and take the responses like a man. An old bloke that is corageous enough to promote the legalisation of underage porn in internet should have the balls to face the adverse winds. Because if you are surprised about the reaction, you are probably not only a "Should get help by a psych" but a pretty NAIVE "Should get help by a doc"!

boa15 wrote:Regarding the latest post by jean, apparently most people seem to share your view and disagree with my proposal.

Thats the first time in this topic you really express the result of a rational thought. Ok, but your are even wrong at that, Booz agrees with you. But its Booz, a guy who who has made jokes about dead children in the past.

boa15 wrote:However I should have the right to express my opinion without being slandered by patbah77.

Dude, you post shit, you get shit! Thats life. Stop whining.