18-yo teenagers? Help me, please

[George]

Simon wrote:

"secondly if you take any photos of the 16-17 you have now gone into child porn which I fucking hate and people should be hung"

Dear Simon,

Sex with 16 year-olds is legal in nearly all civilised countries and most uncivlised ones. Indeed, the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 14, and in Spain it was recently raised from 12 to 13.

For that reason, and for many others, 16 year-olds are not "children", and it is neither unnatural nor an offence to "fancy", or indeed to have sex with, a sixteen year-old. Taking pornographic pictures of 16 year-olds is legal in the UK provided parents have consented to it.

It is certainly not paedophilia, a word you omitted to use as I suspect you might have had difficulty spelling it.

So we are not talking about "child porn", and your diatribe (look it up, they have dictionaries at the library) tells us more about you than about Pat. Ranting, hate-filled, ignorant, hypocritical bigots are the true perverts in our society, and if I was going on one of the News of the World's nasty witch-hunts (which I am not), yours would be the first house I would search.

[magoo]

The law was changed recently by Blunkett so it is now illegal to publish images for financial gain of persons under 18. It is of course still legal to fuck a 16 year old and film it providing you dont publish the film for money. Why you would want to is beyond me. Pervy fuckers.

Magoo...Likes his birds fully grown for a fuller flavour (bootifull says bernard)

[woodgnome]

can you post a link to, or cite a source confirming, this change in the law? any media coverage of it has passed me by.

[jj]

EH?
Are you suggesting that 16-y-o boy filming himself fucking his 16-y-o girlfriend is a 'pervy fucker'?
Isn't this (somewhat specious) argument more about chronological relativism a la the Netherlands?

[Genie]

I think Simon's post *might* have been a 'satirical' wind-up, following the posts immediately before it.

[MisterC]

The age of consent for sexual relations is NOT the same as that for appearing in media for other people.

AFAIK its is legal for a 16 year girl to appear in an adult film in the UK, but as a 16 year cannot sign a binding contract you would need parental contsent. This is likely to change if you read Blunkett's statement the other week - 18+ only!


C

[George]

MisterC wrote:
>
> The age of consent for sexual relations is NOT the same as
> that for appearing in media for other people.
>
> AFAIK its is legal for a 16 year girl to appear in an adult
> film in the UK, but as a 16 year cannot sign a binding
> contract you would need parental contsent. This is likely to
> change if you read Blunkett's statement the other week - 18+
> only!

I have no quarrel with Blunkett raising the age limit for involvement in commercial porn. Girls, and especially boys, of 16 are not mature enough to decide whether this is a good career move. However, sixteen year-olds are definitely old enough for sex, and nobody should be made to feel worried or worse because they find a sixteen year old sexually attractive.

As for Simon's post being satirical, well who knows. It was well done if it was.

[jj]

......neither are they mature enough to make a rational, informed choice as to what educational path they will follow thereafter: one which usually commits them to a given career for the rest of their lives.
But the Government insists they do so.
And only a year later, boys are 'mature' enough to decide they want to die horribly in a foreign field...if they haven't got lung cancer from 12 months' smoking, that is.

[magoo]

Sorry I should have said proposed change in the law soon to be brought in by Davey Blunkett. Heres the link to the Home Office press release.

I have not visited the forum since saturday so sorry for delay in posting the link. The relevent part is the para relating to greater protection for children which proposes to class 16 and 17 year old prostititutes and porn models as children and to punish those who profit from these young peoples activities. I mistakenly thought the Act had been passed but it aint been (yet). The proposals whilst in my view seem draconian are very well thought out. They even cover "peeping toms" who previously had to be "let off" due to no criminal offence being available for charging. Having said that the police usually find some available charge to cover the gaps e.g. behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace etc.

[magoo]

I was not suggessting any such thing JJ. Ever heard the expression "tongue in cheek". Yeah, I know you aint been well.