Last Chance to Influence EU Vote on Banning Pornography

The EU parliament is to vote tomorrow (Tuesday) on the resolution of Kartika Liotard calling on a ban on pornography throughout all forms of media  in Europe (including it seems the internet).

This is our last to chance to influence a vote which could have such far wide ramifications and will undoubtedly take the feminist criminalization of male sexuality in Europe to a whole new level.  If you have not already done so, and whether or not you are an EU citizen, please make your outrage known by sending an e-mail, however brief and to the point, to the following address : europarl-all-mar2013@falkvinge.net.  Your e-mail will automatically be re-directed to every member of the European parliament.

There has been evidence that e-mails to this address are being blocked by the EU parliament.  A spokesman for the parliament has claimed that the explanation is not a desire to censor  but because spam filters automatically block e-mails containing words such as 'porn'.  This is a highly dubious explanation and, in any case, surely when the EU parliament is about to vote to criminalize possibly 99% of the male half of their citizens, they should at least temporarily relax their filter for the subject under debate.  However, to avoid this supposed filter block, it might be wise to avoid using the word porn in the title of your e-mail, and perhaps use p*** in the subject.

***UPDATE : A Change Petition has been set up - please sign!! : http://www.change.org/petitions/the-european-union-say-no-to-a-eu-pornography-ban

When considering the possible legislation that could result from this EU proposal, bear in mind that feminists are firm believers in the 'supply and demand' argument which justifies not only the criminalisation of the publication of illicit pornography, but also the mere viewing or possession of it.  In the UK and most of the EU this principle is already being used to arrest and imprison men for merely looking at any kind of illegal pornography, which includes not only child porn, but also bestiality and bondage images.

The proposed resolution also contains other disturbing elements full of vague language and ill-defined terms, including as a call to punish individuals or organizations that 'promote the sexualisation of girls' (a girl presumably being any 'child' under the age of 18).  This could be used, for example, to criminalize sex education for school children, or to criminalize men for merely looking at a 17 year old girl in the street.  Other disturbing elements include references to mandatory workplace quotas and to further action against 'sex tourism'.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/european-union-to-ban-pornography-then-men/

http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/06/next-tuesday-the-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-all-your-porn-yes-really-take-immediate-action/

http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/07/porn-ban-update-europarl-responds-by-spamfiltering-constituents-then-deletes-explanation-of-porn-ban-but-keeps-effect/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100537931

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/443984/20130308/european-pornography-ban-protest-silenced-spam-filter.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/attempt-to-ban-porn-discovered-in-eu-report-8527202.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rape-crisis-group-backs-meps-call-to-ban-porn-224910.html

 

32 thoughts on “Last Chance to Influence EU Vote on Banning Pornography

  1. Alan Vaughn

    I sent this to thee-mail address above and so far it appears to have been successfully sent, but just in case it doesn't end up where it should I also copied it into the change.org petition that so far has an 'impressive' 19 signatures!

    To whom it may concern:
    Has the whole world gone stark, raving mad? Well anyone could be forgiven for thinking that!
    Please DO NOT even think about voiting in favour of this ban on pornography across the EU - there is NOTHING to be gained by it at all.
    Please THINK before you vote:

    It is important that this proposal be totally scrapped in the interests of personal choice and freedom of speech. If you are are so concerned about children viewing erotic or explicit material, there are much more effective ways to keep them away from it: I.e. introduce laws that will prosecute parents and / or guardians for making it available to them.
    Criminalizing the normal adult consumers of perfectly acceptable publications and media will NOT prevent children from viewing it and above all else: America can explain in great detail, why and how PROHIBITION of anything that has been widely accepted by large quotas of any populace, simply CANNOT work!
    Do NOT try and repeat the same stupid mistake / FIASCO that they made in the 1930's!!

    Yours Sincerely,
    Alan Vaughn - Australia

  2. Alan Vaughn

    However, I think Arthur Schopenbecq's short and straight to the point comment at change.org, is the best one of all of them and makes mine look like one made by a mangina!

  3. I can confirm that the European Parliament is blocking emails about this 'porn ban'. I tried emailing several MEPs and the emails did not get through.

  4. inclinedreader

    The problem is really going to be that the really nasty bits of this proposal are all buried knee deep under an exuberant layer of progressive humanist equal-opportunity egalitarian bullsh*t bingo.

    As even Rick Falkvinge said, he is generally not opposed to the dissolution of gender stereotypes (but he is going to vote against it because he sees that the social cost of this proposal far outweighs the benefit).

    Many parliamentarians however, I am afraid, are not going to look that far behind the smoke screen feminists have laid out with this hodgepodge of junk science and half cooked propositions. It is much more likely that the majority of MPs are just going to jump on the bandwagon and take this as an opportunity to showboat their goody-goody support for feminist issues.

    And the strong-arming by feminist pressure groups should also not be underestimated. MPs who vote against the resolution are likely to suffer the full wrath of feminist interest groups who are already waiting in the wings with their hands open hoping to get their share of the taxpayer money that this resolution proposes to hand out.

    Unfortunately, I believe people are only going to wake up when they get their door kicked down by a swat team at gunpoint at 4 in the morning for downloading what is at the moment still perfectly legal adult porn. If history tells us one thing, it more often than not literally takes the straw that breaks the camel's back before protests against something will become so strong that overbroad extremist legislation is defeated. But as with almost all feminist legislation that has come down the track in recent years, countless lives will have been ruined forever in the mean time.

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Unfortunately, I believe people are only going to wake up when they get their door kicked down by a swat team at gunpoint at 4 in the morning for downloading what is at the moment still perfectly legal adult porn. If history tells us one thing, it more often than not literally takes the straw that breaks the camel’s back before protests against something will become so strong that overbroad extremist legislation is defeated. But as with almost all feminist legislation that has come down the track in recent years, countless lives will have been ruined forever in the mean time.

    I'm afraid I share your pessimism IR. Unfortunately, it will be too late for those individuals at that point. And I believe that virtually all men will sit on the sidelines and watch as the police raid thousands of homes and destroy the lives of those men (and those men will often have families). They'll state publicly, and even convince themselves privately, that they have nothing to fear, because only 'sick perverts' look at porn.

    I honestly doubt if the criminalization of porn, even draconian mass raids on thousands of homes of men for looking at what is now legal porn, will result in even a single public protest, let alone an uprising.

  6. Larner

    @inclinedreader

    It's hard to believe in the so called free world, you can still be arrested, sent to prison for watching a cartoon.

    Like the guy who's going to prison for having anime CP, or the guy who watched the Simpson's porn parody.

    Our freedom is being challenged at this very moment under the mask of protection and security for the children while the true motivation behind all this is the Dries trying to make sure that if they don't get it, the world shall not get it.

    "If I can't get the attention of the world, I shall pass a law to make it illegal for anyone to get the attention."

  7. jack

    Meanwhile today morning the petition proudly boasts 45 voters. What are the 45 million porn junkies out there waiting for? They can’t be bothered. All they care about is the next dose. Now you understand why the MM is getting nowhere.

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Meanwhile today morning the petition proudly boasts 45 voters. What are the 45 million porn junkies out there waiting for? They can’t be bothered. All they care about is the next dose. Now you understand why the MM is getting nowhere.

    Not only that, but my article was on the front page of /r/mensrights for over a day, and somebody else also posted a direct link to the petition there as well. Reddit men's rights supposedly has 60,000 subscribers, yet less than 0.1% can be bothered to sign a petition to stop 300 million men potentially being criminalized as sex offenders by feminists.

    I don't share any of the optimism of Alan or IR, unfortunately. Men won't 'wake up' when thousands of homes are being smashed into by the femi-stasi thought police. It's little different to what's happening now, given that the existing EU laws on illegal pornography (esp.child porn) are quite different to those of the USA, where most porn is produced, and therefore the only way to ensure avoiding breaking these laws is essentially to give up surfing for porn altogether.

    There is absolutely no reason to believe that men will suddenly 'wake up'. What will happen is that the meme will gradually be established across Europe that only sick perverts look at porn, and anyone who even expresses any criticism of these new porn laws must be sick perverts who fap off to porn themselves, and need to be investigated by the authorities.

    Porn is illegal in many countries, even merely to download or look at, and there are no riots in the streets. 99.999% of men will simply become hypocrites. It's hard wired into the male brain.

    The only hope is that a complete ban on porn will be difficult to pass in the USA, and so long as a men's rights movement exists in the USA that isn't completely anti-sex, then they can continue to fight and tell their European cousins that it is feminists who are criminalizing male sexuality. Of course, if porn were to be banned in the USA, you could be sure that the likes of Paul Elam and Dean Esmay would be claiming that the idea of a man fapping off to 'obscene images' on his computer is 'nauseous' etc, and that any discussion of porn as a men's rights issue would be suicide for the movement. Meanwhile, TyphonBlue would produce feminist junk science 'proof' that boys who watch porn grow up to become rapists, alcoholics, homeless vagabonds etc etc.

  9. Larner

    @theantifeminist

    I wonder where all these hate came from...?

    Creating non-sense theories and having the legal system do their brutal work as thought police raids houses and throw people in cages, branding them as sex offenders long before a trial.

    Facing decades in prison for downloading pictures, a defendant who can't afford an aggressive attorney is like a sleep waiting to be slaughtered. The only way out is a plea agreement, plea guilty, be branded as a sex offender and convicted felon for the rest of your life after years if not decades in prison.

    Why are the Dries doing this?

    At first teenagers posing nude is illegal because it's "exploiting them and they're too young to know they're victims."

    Now they want to ban adult porn, featuring consenting actors and actresses above the age of 18. What are they now? "So fueled with sex that they don't know they're being exploited?"

    Why? Why are the Dries doing this?

    Is it the environment they grew up in?
    Is it because the boy they have a crush on went to prom with the cheer captain?
    Is it because the pretty girl in class always gets to talk to more guys?

    Damaged people, driven into madness, that's what I think the Dries are.

    Behind the madness, the only thing left is jealousy.

  10. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Good comment Larner.

    Really, you only need a basic grasp of female psychology to understand this. Just read any newspaper or media publication or website aimed at women and see the topics most discussed (i.e. relationships, appearances, staying young, gossip, who is cheating on who) and see what the advertisements are offering (how to look young and attractive).

    And remember, when we're referring to these dries, we're including more than the femihags at the top of the heap. Also the mass of unattractive women who support them. And, as we were discussing before, even attractive 18 year old girls have a vested self-interest in seeing the age of consent at 18 (or close to it as possible), and even attractive girls and women have a certain vested interest in having all porn banned (aside from the attractive women who are actually making money from appearing in porn), and certainly all prostitution banned.

    People like John Walsh and Chris Hanson are literally tools. They are tools of social and political forces that are far bigger than them as individuals.

  11. Jay

    I have to say the more I read about these sorts of things the more I'm concerned about looking at porn at all on the internet. As for signing the petition am I effectively signing that I'm a pervert by default? Is even reading this site something I should be worried about? I suspect sites such as these could easily disappear over night. Whens the first PUA rape case gonna happen? Surely only a matter of time.

    I'm guessing thats the point of any of these vague laws, to instill fear etc. Clearly you cant lock up everybody for there would be nobody left to do the locking up, but if enough high profile cases hit the public consciousness then people like me will disappear and not take the risk. Its censorship by the back door.

    The fact the definitions seem so vague makes me wonder what people who go to prison have actually watched. That Brass Eye episode showed the utterly arbitrary nature of their categories, the juxtaposition of dicks, animal bodies, dolls all jumbled up in multiple ways and the guy just seemed to randomly decide what was ok and not. Did he base his decision on whether it turned him on or not!! A future feminist definition of porn perhaps, "any media liable to produce erection"!!

    In a future satire I'm thinking of a "wank" of mine regarding an old girlfriend being regarded as rape. Effectively the woman in question only consented to sex once, my internal access of that event and gained pleasure being a memory rape of her. This of course would include any "wank bank" material. Perhaps I should contact all past girlfriends and get written consent to masturbate to their memories!!

    Out of interest do you think one would get a reduced sentence if it could be proved the quality of the females you masurbated to was objectively low.

  12. Larner

    @Jay

    This is the difficult part of tackling this issue

    The dries has the public under control and they made this subject, which is very fragile when it comes to a discussion, a taboo. It is impossible to discuss it without being called a pedophile or a rapist.

    They're clever, to win a battle that you can't win, you simply don't even start it.

    However, I'm glad to see the guys on blogs and the internet who are fighting against the growing power the the Dries. This is a very important issue that the public needs to be more aware of.

    I really see no difference between the laws that the Dries passed and the laws that the radical religious countries passed.

    Oppression on human rights and freedom in the name of security.. for who? Themselves?

  13. Larner

    @theantifeminist

    I simply have a name for them "tamed."

    They're tamed by their masters... well I don't really blame Chris Hansen that much, he's really nothing more than a host. But John Walsh is a different story.

    That man's probably one of the biggest pedocrite there is, and he's now moving his laws to weapons, suggesting that we install GPS chips into guns. Of course, this is for the safety of gun owners.

    When will John Walsh suggest that we install chips on kids? you know, just incase they get lost?

    You need to write something about this guy, he's the biggest Tamed and is definitely bad news.

  14. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Good comment Jay, and I hope you stick around (btw, this Jay is clearly not the MRA formerly known as Jay Hammers).

    Out of interest do you think one would get a reduced sentence if it could be proved the quality of the females you masurbated to was objectively low.

    When all porn is illegal (possibly from today, or the legislative road embarked on today), we will indeed have a system such as this.

    In the UK, under present definitions and sentencing guidelines for viewing child porn NO MENTION is made of age.

    Thus a picture of a naked 17 year old girl is treated just as seriously as a picture of a naked 3 year old.

    I'm not sure if 'virtual' child porn is treated more 'leniently' but I imagine that judges do pass lighter sentences for pictures of 25 year old women in pigtails etc.

    So given that (I assume) the extent of real child pornography (ie. pictures and videos of toddlers and pre-pubescent children being abused) is probably miniscule, we will in effect have 3 banding systems :

    Most severe : images of nubile adolescent girls.

    2nd most severe : 'virtual' child porn - i.e. 'barely legal' (in the USA) teen porn featuring girls aged 18 - 25

    Least severe : all other porn that is now legal but likely to be soon illegal in Europe - i.e. women aged 25 and above.

  15. Jay

    @Larner

    "The dries has the public under control and they made this subject, which is very fragile when it comes to a discussion, a taboo. It is impossible to discuss it without being called a pedophile or a rapist."

    Yes I can clearly see that, its certainly not something I could ever bring up in public without great unease. I am one to make a lot of jokes about this sort of thing with mates, of the snigger variety.

    Very noticeable in the cases in the papers how they like to avoid specifying ages etc. And how they are trying to get all forms of "inappropriate" sexual behaviour badged as rape. The public appear to lap these stories up. The Daily Mail commenters go off on a frenzy, which probably backs up the "paedocrite" theory. Thou doth protest too much!

    By the way what does dries stand for?

  16. Jay

    @theantifeminist

    Have you got any links to lock up rates in the UK for this? And also what the actual laws are in the UK. I'm guessing that you have past articles on it. Presumably they are vague enough to allow a big net, can catch many more porn critters by making the terms virtually meaningless and leaving it up to "feelings", "instincts" of the upstanding judges to determine guilt.

  17. inclinedreader

    I just dug up this blog post again by the amazig American sex therapist Dr. Marty Klein who has a blog in which he often attempts to dispel puritannical sexual myths... always well worth a read.

    http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/morality-in-media-admits-they-lack-facts-so-they-lie-about-porn/

    The shocking realization should be that this current EU proposal is like a wholesale smorgasbord of (almost invariably widely disproved) anti-porn arguments put forward by the American Christian Right in recent years. I knew this the first time I read about these EU plans, and the same harebrained arguments have recently been posited by Iceland's moribund government coalition which has been in desperate need of a selling point for the upcoming Icelandic elections.

    The biggest doozie however is this snippet from a press release by Morality in Media, one of the many interconnected Christian Right pressure groups, as quoted in Dr. Klein's post:

    “No researcher has yet published a study that uses empirical science to validate the [alleged] link between adult and child pornography…the U.S. Department of Justice doles out hundreds of millions of dollars for crime research, ostensibly to discover ways to make us safer. The link between adult and child pornography should now be a top target of research.”

    In today's media world, even more so than following the proverbial money, it pays to "follow the arguments", and see where they originated from to find out who is really behind them and who is the instigator. And yet again, as this proves, this turns up the usual suspects of Christian extremist moral conservatives and femiservatives who are incubating a new Christian Right in Europe, and on whose bandwagon feminists of nearly all subcurrents are happily jumping. The American Christian Right has long had it sights set on Europe, because it has feared that sex-liberal European legislation and court decisions could serve as blueprints for more liberal government decisions in the U.S.. This is also one main reason why the U.S. is pushing for a prostitution ban around the globe, for ever-more stringent anti-porn legislation, and increasingly forbidding age of consent laws.

    Our downfall here in Europe is going to be once again that unlike in the U.S., European citizens have no legal recourse against the corrupt antidemocratic soviet-like political structures of the EU. While in Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, the latter were able to have overbroad child porn legislation struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, any such protest group here in Europe would have no real way of effectively protesting such EU legislation at all. Which is why the very same child porn laws that were deemed unconstitutional in the U.S. by its highest court were able to be enacted here in the EU.

    And therefore this vote in the European Parliament today is of great importance. Because if accepted, not only are we actually in for the draconian anti-porn laws that this resolution proposes, but European taxpayer money is going to be wasted on attempting to establish a junk science link between adult and child pornography on the one hand, and adult pornography and violence against women and children on the other hand. With the U.S. now down the fiscal cliff and public funding probably dried up in America, my guess would be that those interest groups, together with all the leeching feminist pressure groups, are now looking to be bankrolled by the EU to perpetuate their cause.

  18. Larner

    @Jay

    Couldn't agree with you more about the taboo part, from the way you use your phrases I suppose you're from either the UK or the commonwealth?

    I'm a student of law and I've been discussing this issue with several of my friends. At first they're not willing to talk about it because it's just "inappropriate." But after some quick facts, they started to realize how crazy this is getting.

    Especially in the US.

    The prison population is booming, and funny thing is that CP convictions only carry an average sentence less than murder and kidnapping. Yes, downloading stuff is worse than most violent crimes.

    CP violations can carry years if not decades in federal prison, and thanks to the Dries we have the crazy sex offender registry that is suppose to keep us safe from the rapists but yet filled with high school kids that had sex or drunk students that peed in public.

    This guy in Florida recently got life in prison without parole because he went to trial instead of pleading guilty, like most offenders do. This conviction is a warning, tell us that if you don't plead guilty, we're locking you up as long as most serial killers do... for downloading videos.

    Human-Stupidity wrote amazing articles about the topic. You should check his blog out.

    By the way, the Dries are the feminists, you probably get the idea of why they're called that haha. And the Tamed are the followers, the ones that are just blinding following their orders and acting out mostly because they're scared and believed the stories told to them by the Dries.

  19. Alan Vaughn

    By the way, the Dries are the feminists, you probably get the idea of why they’re called that haha. And the Tamed are the followers, the ones that are just blinding following their orders and acting out mostly because they’re scared and believed the stories told to them by the Dries..

    Yes I, or WE understand what those terms mean. No offence intended, but please don't expect the rest of us here to start using them.
    On this blog we often refer to feminists (Dries) as the sexual trade union (as they are a trade union that is there to protect the sexual interests, 'rights' or tries to uphold or even increase the sexual value of its mainly middle-aged, sexually bitter & jealous femihag membership; and 'Tamed' here are simply referred to as manginas or white-knights (self explanatory).
    The latter are also widely used and accepted across the whole Men's Rights Movement and on both sides of the Atlantic and here Downunder or, across the world-wide MRM.

  20. Eric

    Just as a side note: this story is not appearing in the US media in any significant ways. I've looked up some mainstream outlets here and haven't found much other than a few reports on the Iceland ban a couple of weeks ago.

    Why do you suppose the Murdoch Media is sitting on this story? Maybe they hope the ban will go through to gain a monopoly on porn in non-EUssr countries?

  21. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Muslims again trying to force the UN to make any criticism of Islam a criminal offence anywhere in the world : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAejyp6IUj0

    The thing is, supranational governments and bodies will always allow lobby groups to wield massively excessive power amd influence over people's lives.

  22. Jack

    I've just watched the youtube video about Islam. I wish he wouldn't go "muslim mistreat women and children" like he does. Opponents of Islam have also found out wimmin & children are the key to a large audience.

  23. Larner

    @theantifeminist

    It's like a circle, if you go far right or far left

    You end up in the same place

    What's going on in Saudi Arabia is probably what the feminists want to establish around the world.

    In the same of gender equality and child safety of course.

  24. Dog Meat

    @theantifeminist-Just had a look at that WaPo article.
    The autho's a dickhead presstitute but the good news is that the comments are going very much in the right direction.
    That is, old enough to go to war, marry, take out a mortgage, etc. etc.-old enough to be in porn.
    The yanks DO need to lower their drinking age, though.

  25. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The autho’s a dickhead presstitute but the good news is that the comments are going very much in the right direction.
    That is, old enough to go to war, marry, take out a mortgage, etc. etc.-old enough to be in porn.
    The yanks DO need to lower their drinking age, though.

    I wonder if the writer has ever watched 'teen' (18-21) porn, like 99% of the men on the planet, and I wonder if he's confident he'll be able to stop watching when he gets his wish and such mateiral is classified as 'child porn'?

    Anyone who has ever watched 18 year olds in porn will realise that it is absolutely nothing to them. And if taking it up the ass for money in front of a camera knowing it will be watched and fapped off to by thousands of strange men is nothing to an 18 year old girl, then it's hard to push the myth that a 17 year old, or even younger teens, cannot consent to private willing sex with an older partner.

    Similarly, I grew up watching 'Channel 17' porn videos from Holland (they were legal back then in the UK) featuring 16 and 17 year old girls happily banging each other and older men in hardcore movies. Anyone who watches those videos and believes that they were being abused, or that 16 or 17 year old girls having private sex in a relationship are being 'abused' and would/will suffer some kind of inherent trauma from it, would have to be suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance.

    And this is a central reason why it's so important to criminalize even the viewing of teenage porn.

  26. Larner

    @theantifeminist

    In a country where the age of consent is 16.

    16 year old girl has sex with 80 year old man=legal and fine
    15 year old girl has sex with 16 year old boy=abuse and rape

    Fun way how the feminists use the word rape.

    16 year old girl has a 4 way with 3 40 year old men=legal and fine
    17 year old girl sends a nude photo to a 17 year old boy=abused every time the picture is seen.

  27. theantifeminist

    Post author

    In a country where the age of consent is 16.

    16 year old girl has sex with 80 year old man=legal and fine
    15 year old girl has sex with 16 year old boy=abuse and rape

    Fun way how the feminists use the word rape.

    16 year old girl has a 4 way with 3 40 year old men=legal and fine
    17 year old girl sends a nude photo to a 17 year old boy=abused every time the picture is seen.

    @Larner - most of your comments here have been a breath of fresh air, and I see your point here, but I and a couple of others would take issue with it.

    I disagree with this 'common sense' assumption that a 40 year old having sex with a 16 year old is worse than a 16 year old boy having sex with her.

    If a 16 year old girl can consent to have sex with a 16 year old boy, I don't see why she can't consent to sex with an older partner.

    Of course my point was that being gang banged in a porn studio for it to be watched and wanked by thousands, is a more 'complex' act than having sex in private (whether with a 16 year old boy or a 40 year old man).

    If I recall correctly, in the porn videos I watched, the 16 year old girls seemed to be enjoying being banged by the older guys more than they were by the same aged boys.

    In fact, it seems to me that a nervous 16 year old girl might have a more positive sex experience with a 40 year old man who knows what he is doing, than with an equally nervous 16 year old boy, or a 16 year old boy who is going to brag about it to his mates etc.

    Accepting the idea that a teen having sex with an older partner is more serious than a teen having sex with another teen is validating the feminist attempts to raise the age of consent through the back door.

  28. Larner

    @theantifeminist

    I see your point there, and I probably didn't express myself well enough on my reply.

    My point is that if the law gives a 16 year old girl the ability to consent to having sex with a 40 year old man. Why would a 15 year old girl having sex with a 16 year old man be considered rape?

    And at the same time, if she has the ability to consent to sex and even stuff like gang-bang, why would sexting be abusing her?

    I don't think there is an issue with older men having sex with teenage girls. I mean, if the teenage girl consented to the sex then there really isn't anything wrong about it. Like the Playboy guy marries 20 something year olds and he's like 80. It doesn't really matter as long as both sides are consenting.

    IMO, anyone above puberty (13~14 in most cases) can consent to sexual activity. Countries like Spain and Japan have their age of consent at 13 I think, and I don't see people getting raped on the streets.

  29. Columnist

    Larner
    14 Mar 13 at 11:52 am

    This line of reasoning opened several years ago my eyes to the absurdity of present laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>