Quote:
Originally Posted by Iliftrocks
To be fair, Hillary was biologically an adult and ready to mate, way before the grand old age of 18. Don't get me wrong as far as arbitrary limits go, 18 is a pretty fair age (Gotta get that diploma...), but physically we are ready for sex, etc. years prior to that age. Wasn't that long ago that the age for consent in a lot of states was closer to 13, which to me seems quite a bit low, even though I am from the south. Of course I believe New York state's was lower than NC's heh.
|
And I think there should be different rules for different types of child porn. I think it is wrong, and probably the vast majority of people think the same way, that forcing or paying people under 18 to have sex and photograph or record it would be bad and should be illegal. Even amateur stuff between two high school students should be illegal to distribute.
But even though Hilary was paid to pose for those photographs (and she wasn't naked), she was old enough to know what she was doing in a solo setting. And the controversial statement I will make is that girls under 4 or 5 don't know better or will change enough in a few years that paparazzi or covert pictures of them running around a backyard, taking a bath, or at a beach naked wouldn't effect them. Although I'm not sure how you could tell the difference between a picture of a girl who went to a nude beach with her family versus a girl who was bribed to take off her swimsuit for candy. It is the girls between 6 and 14 that are supposed to be protected by the current child porn laws. It is hard to tell the difference between the picture of a girl that wants to take nude images of herself and the girl that has been abducted and forced to strip.
A lot of it has to do with context and it is hard to figure out. The human form shouldn't be illegal to look at whatever the age. But it is bad to create victims of forced pornography at a young age when judgments and decisions made then could have bigger repercussions later on.