Mourn no longer! Sugardaddy tumblr (and dozens of magazines, other sites etc) has what you need. You often have to be more specific about type of underwear these days, though....
Revenge porn and misogynistic harassment can be dealt with under existing laws - moving into a digital age has, unfortunately, made that sort of thing much too easy to do, but it's not as if similarly unpleasant things didn't happen in ye olden timesThis is not actually the case. In many parts of the U.S. for example, if a woman voluntarily sends sexual pictures to another person, the person can distribute then as they see fit, and the woman will have no legal recourse unless they are used for commercial purposes.
The idea that there are (widedpread) legal protections is a common misconception, right up there with the idea that existing anti-discrimination laws protect transpeople.
IP laws. As far as I understand USA copyrights, since the 90s any picture or recording is automatically copyrighted since its creation/recording and any reproduction of picture/visual recording without explicit permission is illegal, even when not used for commercial purposes. The person distributing the picture would have to prove that the permission for further distribution was granted, not the owner of the picture prove there was no permission. Of course there is still a matter of troubles and costs involved with any legal proceedings.
Mourn no longer! Sugardaddy tumblr (and dozens of magazines, other sites etc) has what you need. You often have to be more specific about type of underwear these days, though....
The thing is: Now that hardcore is freely available it is what people want and expect. What I mourn is this change where simple erotic is neglected.
It's far from neglected. Have you gone to any burlesque shows? They're all over the place.
Mourn no longer! Sugardaddy tumblr (and dozens of magazines, other sites etc) has what you need. You often have to be more specific about type of underwear these days, though....The thing is: Now that hardcore is freely available it is what people want and expect. What I mourn is this change where simple erotic is neglected.
EDIT: link is to Wikipedia entry, so presumably SFW...
I find it disconcerting that there's a disconnect between prostitution and pornography in the eyes of the law. Whether they are illegal or legal, they should be one and the same...you're being paid to have sex. Whether a camera is filming that fact or not is irrelevant.
***I'm not even going to bother to make my opinion as to whether it should be legal or not a point here; I'm simply saying it's f***ing ridiculous (pun intended) that they're not the same thing in the eyes of the law.
I don't understand your meaning. What do you mean by disconnect? Prostitution is still considered illegal in every state but Nevada, and pornography accusations can still get your computer seized without trial.
And what is your basis on making them the same crime? Or your meaning?
Are you serious? You can't see the basis for making them the same?
Prostitute takes money for sex. Goes to jail if caught.
Porn actor/actress takes money for sex on camera. No legal repercussions.
That is stupid. Either both should be illegal or neither one should be. The idea that a porn actor/actress is anything but a prostitute is ridiculous.
Please make a note that I am not pointing out whether either one of those things is or is not a bad thing to be or whether they as a group should or shouldn't be illegal, merely that they're the same exact thing, even if the law may not think so.
Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
Both take money to perform sex. The only literal difference is whether a camera is involved or not. The sex is real in either case.
You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.
I find it disconcerting that there's a disconnect between prostitution and pornography in the eyes of the law. Whether they are illegal or legal, they should be one and the same...you're being paid to have sex. Whether a camera is filming that fact or not is irrelevant.
***I'm not even going to bother to make my opinion as to whether it should be legal or not a point here; I'm simply saying it's f***ing ridiculous (pun intended) that they're not the same thing in the eyes of the law.
I don't understand your meaning. What do you mean by disconnect? Prostitution is still considered illegal in every state but Nevada, and pornography accusations can still get your computer seized without trial.
And what is your basis on making them the same crime? Or your meaning?
Are you serious? You can't see the basis for making them the same?
Prostitute takes money for sex. Goes to jail if caught.
Porn actor/actress takes money for sex on camera. No legal repercussions.
That is stupid. Either both should be illegal or neither one should be. The idea that a porn actor/actress is anything but a prostitute is ridiculous.
Please make a note that I am not pointing out whether either one of those things is or is not a bad thing to be or whether they as a group should or shouldn't be illegal, merely that they're the same exact thing, even if the law may not think so.
this is a potentially ugly case of similar things not being the same.
Sorry, quick correction...
Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
So if I pay someone to have sex with me on camera and then (after verbal pre-agreement) distribute it for profit for myself on the internet is it illegal? Is it prostitution or porn?
... because that's a (potentially) important addendum (though, one submits, not necessarily), and definitively makes whatever you're doing "pornography" (whereas the other could just be... I dunno... a private collection or something?) if we're going on about "differences" between the two.
One realm of difference - one area of concern that could differentiate the two - is that pornography could be considered a broader category than prostitution.
In prostitution, you pay someone to have sex with yourself or another. (I think anything else isn't, technically, prostitution? Correct me if I'm wrong, legally speaking.)
In pornography, you pay someone to engage in sexual acts on camera, but, if all the pop-up advertisements I used to be bombarded with are to be believed, it might not actually involve another person.
Buuuuuuuuuuuut that's a pretty limited difference between the two, really.
The point is: sexual activity occurs and money exchanges hands exclusively for the sexual activity, whether or not that activity is on camera, with you, or with another person - and in all cases, there is most certainly an element of "performance" to the whole thing. I'd strongly doubt a typical prostitute's clientele are all about "I hate you, this sucks, and I really hate my life." plus poor treatment of the client* while the two of them are engaging in their paid-for interaction (again, barring a relatively few specific clients). This seems pretty straight-forward.
((Aside: the binary "it's not illegal to purchase sex, it's totally illegal to sell sex" is terrible in every way. Holy. Crap. That is... that... it's... wow.))
* Or, alternatively, "Man, I love having sex with so many total strangers." or "You know, you're the fifth guy/gal this week! I'm on a roll!" or "****, did I take my birth control?" or "No, seriously, I can see why you'd need a prostitute." or so on. I'd tend to imagine the preponderance of prostitutes would more engage in behavior like "That was great, baby!" or "It's okay, I understand you." or "Mm, yeah, I loved it!" absolutely regardless of how they felt about the client or how well the client did. You know: a performance involving sexual acts for money.
You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.
So I won't go to jail if I pay two prostitutes to go at it with one another while I watch?
Pretty sure I will.
Only difference is the camera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something worth noting is what the research tells you about the effect of porn on viewers.
It essentially leaves you wanting to do what you see. So if porn showing people just having sex leaves you interested in sex.
This sounds fine but one of the causes of partner rape is wanting to get the woman to do things the man has seen in porn she doesn't want to do. If you know what is in a lot of hard core porn you can easily see how this can happen.
I think it also means the law in Australia is sensible. You can show sex but not sex with violence or abuse. This is in contrast to Japan where rape is a big theme in porn and other media. Worse, rape where the woman loves it in the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is a potentially ugly case of similar things not being the same.
You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.
Oh, I see. It's totally different in that case.
I'll solicit one or more prostitutes for a friend of mine (and give him fifty bucks), and he'll solicit one or more prostitutes for me (and give me fifty bucks). There will be one or more cameras involved. To be careful, we'll make sure that there's not an accidental "overlap" in which he (or those I've solicited for him) engages with me or those solicited for me by him.
Voila~! Problems avoided. Yes? That would avoid the situation, correct?
Because that falls under me paying two or more people to have sex in front of a camera.
If that doesn't work, exactly, we'll set up a three-ring alliance (me -> my buddy -> and our mutual friend -> me) and just won't agree on how much we'll give the other person, keeping that part private, so it's not like we're just shoving the same $50 bill around at each other.
Maybe distribute the videos for profit or for free (gaining profit by ad revenue or however they're doing it now).
Wouldn't that sidestep the whole issue?
EDIT:
Something worth noting is what the research tells you about the effect of porn on viewers.
It essentially leaves you wanting to do what you see. So if porn showing people just having sex leaves you interested in sex.
This sounds fine but one of the causes of partner rape is wanting to get the woman to do things the man has seen in porn she doesn't want to do. If you know what is in a lot of hard core porn you can easily see how this can happen.
I think it also means the law in Australia is sensible. You can show sex but not sex with violence or abuse. This is in contrast to Japan where rape is a big theme in porn and other media. Worse, rape where the woman loves it in the end.
Do you have links to this? Because such a powerful statement, if backed up by hard numbers, is a really big deal.
Note - I'm not denying or challenging this. Pornography definitively triggers the Pavalovian response, which is perfect for conditioning.
I'm just curious about sources, and how much solid evidence for "I see, must do" actually exists as a link between them in pornographic material. Is the response "Yeah, I want that kind of thing in real life!" or "Yeah, I wanna see more of that kind of thing on the tv! ... ew, never in real life!" (as I know that there are certainly elements of my own fantasy worlds that contradict my preferences in the real world).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is a potentially ugly case of similar things not being the same.You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.Oh, I see. It's totally different in that case.
I'll solicit one or more prostitutes for a friend of mine (and give him fifty bucks), and he'll solicit one or more prostitutes for me (and give me fifty bucks). There will be one or more cameras involved. To be careful, we'll make sure that there's not an accidental "overlap" in which he (or those I've solicited for him) engages with me or those solicited for me by him.
Voila~! Problems avoided. Yes? That would avoid the situation, correct?
Because that falls under me paying two or more people to have sex in front of a camera.
If that doesn't work, exactly, we'll set up a three-ring alliance (me -> my buddy -> and our mutual friend -> me) and just won't agree on how much we'll give the other person, keeping that part private, so it's not like we're just shoving the same $50 bill around at each other.
Maybe distribute the videos for profit or for free (gaining profit by ad revenue or however they're doing it now).
Wouldn't that sidestep the whole issue?
Sometimes you agree with someone so much and so often, you find yourself needing to make an alias for all the times you shout out a "+1"
We just need a "Gambitbear", Oh My!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Shadowcat, you're saying the difference is bureaucracy?
Pretty sure there's a lot of porn that doesn't do that. Entire genres dedicated to sidestepping those little caveats.
And even if not, I find it pretty hilarious that nobody in California has opened a brothel under the guise of a porn acting class with expert teachers and acting fees based upon the lesson categories.
Maybe I should move to California and become a pimp...I mean, producer/director/acting school headmaster
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The primary difference between Porn and prostitution is simply porn is protected as art.
Though prostitution being illegal is just generally a bad idea in my opinion, if it was legal and regulated it would much safer.
You'd still get evil folks using the legal side of it as a front for trafficking, child prostitution, and all other kinds of evil s&+& but at least prostitutes would have a chance to be treated like human beings and have some legal recourse in case of on the job victimization and have a better chance of avoiding STDs etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, how has no major studio done that? It's genius. "Acting School." Pay more for "better teachers" or "more specialized lessons".
You don't even have to teach legitimate acting alongside it if you specify that it's designed as an auxiliary for traditional acting classes, to cover the "lessons" not taught in traditional acting.
No more shady than selling assault rifles under the guise that they're for "hunting". There's a gun shop in my town that is supposedly a hunting superstore that carries SMGs but not a single bow. Yeah, right, hunting...
The United States is already the country that puts the highest percentage of it's own population in prison. Do we really need to add to that number?Both take money to perform sex. The only literal difference is whether a camera is involved or not. The sex is real in either case.Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
I specifically took time to say, REPEATEDLY, that they should be the same, whether illegal or legal, and that I was NOT dictating that they should both be crimes. By that definition both could be legal. It's the hypocrisy that one is while the other is not that's ridiculous.
More generally I believe that a woman(or man) should have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their bodies.
Prostitution is a weird case where it is illegal to sell something you are legally allowed to give away for free(and even expected to do so by society).
this is a potentially ugly case of similar things not being the same.You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.Oh, I see. It's totally different in that case.
I'll solicit one or more prostitutes for a friend of mine (and give him fifty bucks), and he'll solicit one or more prostitutes for me (and give me fifty bucks). There will be one or more cameras involved. To be careful, we'll make sure that there's not an accidental "overlap" in which he (or those I've solicited for him) engages with me or those solicited for me by him.
Voila~! Problems avoided. Yes? That would avoid the situation, correct?
Because that falls under me paying two or more people to have sex in front of a camera.
If that doesn't work, exactly, we'll set up a three-ring alliance (me -> my buddy -> and our mutual friend -> me) and just won't agree on how much we'll give the other person, keeping that part private, so it's not like we're just shoving the same $50 bill around at each other.
Maybe distribute the videos for profit or for free (gaining profit by ad revenue or however they're doing it now).
Wouldn't that sidestep the whole issue?
Sure, just make sure you actually research all the laws, like required testing, background checks, contracts for all those involved, follow discrimination lawsm and make sure your distribution method is safe, and make sure you pay all the taxes and fees. And don't forget to declare your "profits" on your taxes, ask Al Capone about that one.
My only real issue with either job though, and it is the same issue with both, is the trafficking angle.
Okay, so what about "amateur" stuff? Stuff done or published for free? At what point does it change? Where are the laws involved in those?
If the "studio" is small enough (i.e. one person plus actors), there are no methods for ensuring anti-discrimination principles, because it's uninforceable.
Verbal contracts are legally binding. "I'm going to put this on the internet later. Okay?" Done.
Distribution method is the internet. "Here, I'll start up 'whatever.dot' and be done." It has a cover page. "Be 18 or whatever the heck the local minimum age is before clicking. I'm out."
I mean, it's not like the laws are hard to find.
The funny thing about the Miller test is that it's a running joke on a different forum that I frequent that most porn is completely worthless. I mean, there is no literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in watching two people have sex... unless there is, in which case there is value in anything.
As far as "patently offensive"... have you seen the internet?
Here, again, let's get this clear:
- prostitution is illegal, even if it is otherwise covered under every possible consideration given to pornography
- pornography is legal, even if it doesn't really hold up to anyone's standards, because it's everywhere (this was ruled against in a particular case, but, you know, it has yet to ever be enforced)
This is... bizarre, to say the least.
My only real issue with either job though, and it is the same issue with both, is the trafficking angle.
Human trafficking is one of those things that... I just... it's one of those mindnumbingly awful things. It's hard to believe it's real sometimes, it's so terrible. How? Why? Who could ever?
And yet. Definition, for the curious.
One of the worst things, in my opinion, is the fact that "pimp" has become a thing that "everyone does". "Pimp my ride" or "pimp my style" or "pimp my kitchen" or whatever it is.
A "pimp" is, by definition, one who engages in human trafficking. We have, over-all, turned it into a joke.
That's horrible.
Blech, stopping, before I make myself more ill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both take money to perform sex. The only literal difference is whether a camera is involved or not. The sex is real in either case.Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
You're forgetting THE most important difference as far as legality goes.
One can be taxed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both take money to perform sex. The only literal difference is whether a camera is involved or not. The sex is real in either case.Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
You're forgetting THE most important difference as far as legality goes.
One can be taxed.
That discrepancy only exists because of the difference in legality, and therefore is not a justification for said difference in legality. Legal prostitution is taxed. Illegal filming of pornography is not taxed.
|
Meh. I don't get it.
Still, pornography has been shown to have some influence in causing a few issues. Younger viewers often have their expectations of sexuality influenced by pornography (Is my body suppose to be look like that? Is that the most pleasurable way to have sex? What the hell is this 'foreplay' real women are expecting me to do? Am I suppose to do what those women in the videos do?)These sorts of claims (like ones made about our own hobby for instance) are vague and tenuous enough that I have trouble believing them, much less to the point of interfering with someones first amendment rights.
If young people are confused well the solution would be a better more realistic porn video
I agree with the general sentiment but not with the final sentence - with the internet being what it is nobody can really have enough control over pornographic content to make it more realistic. What is more possible is better sex education and perhaps a slow societal progress away from the preconception that sex is somehow dirty and inappropriate to discuss openly. That appears to be a remnent of some older ways, inspired by times where sex was evil because some holy book said so (it's slightly more complicated, of course, because the holy book was written to appeal to society norms that existed at the time and so probably sex was already somewhat taboo, but once something because a divine mandate it tends to be exacerbated to an impressive degree).
The thing is, humans have always been effected by unrealistic stories. Porn looks different from real sex the same way an action movie looks different from real violence, or the same way a poem about some mountain will be different than the actual lump of rock. That has always been true because it's part of the way humans think and act. It's only ever raised as an issue by people with a political agenda that collides with what the fantasy represents in the first place, though. I don't think any real kind of damage has ever been clearly proven by any media.
Both take money to perform sex. The only literal difference is whether a camera is involved or not. The sex is real in either case.Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
You're forgetting THE most important difference as far as legality goes.
One can be taxed.
Prostitution can be, too.
There are cities where the girls have to buy tax tickets for every evening they want to work. They are checked to see if they work without paying taxes.But something else: something I think is totally silly and wrong is if minor girls make nude pictures of themselves to sue them for child pornography.
That law is meant to protect kids, not to turn them into criminals.
In the UK that happened. A girl took pictures of herself and 'distributed'them. For that she was sued for distributing child pornography.
Both take money to perform sex. The only literal difference is whether a camera is involved or not. The sex is real in either case.Let's see, in one case, someone sells sex to someone else. In the other, someone performs for money, which is then copied and sold on.
No, not the same thing. But many of the same stigmata.
You're forgetting THE most important difference as far as legality goes.
One can be taxed.
Prostitution can be, too.
There are cities where the girls have to buy tax tickets for every evening they want to work. They are checked to see if they work without paying taxes.But something else: something I think is totally silly and wrong is if minor girls make nude pictures of themselves to sue them for child pornography.
That law is meant to protect kids, not to turn them into criminals.
In the UK that happened. A girl took pictures of herself and 'distributed'them. For that she was sued for distributing child pornography.
if she's under the age of consent, yeah. Here in the us, the same thing would happen.
You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.So I won't go to jail if I pay two prostitutes to go at it with one another while I watch?
Pretty sure I will.
Only difference is the camera.
that depends heavily upon the jurisdiction you live in. Probably county law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Shadowcat, you're saying the difference is bureaucracy?
Pretty sure there's a lot of porn that doesn't do that. Entire genres dedicated to sidestepping those little caveats.
And even if not, I find it pretty hilarious that nobody in California has opened a brothel under the guise of a porn acting class with expert teachers and acting fees based upon the lesson categories.
Maybe I should move to California and become a pimp...I mean, producer/director/acting school headmaster
actually,speaking of county law, there's a reason a lot of porn is made in the same areas/locales. in short, lots of porn DOES do that, and it's primarily because local law (usually county) allows it.
And yes, there are several acting classes taught by porn stars. Sometimes its to help you break into the biz, other times it's just sex counseling/therapy, other times it's for their blog. I would very much love to meet one of my heroines (though much more so for my wife), Annie Sprinkle, who is a certified sex counselor, runs numerous classes on sex toys and paraphernalia, and is also a bit odd/strange.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That appears to be a remnent of some older ways, inspired by times where sex was evil because some holy book said so
Well, the holy book said so because it was pretty much the only way to cut down on STDs in an age before penicillin.
Its amazing how much culture comes out of a petrie dish..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But something else: something I think is totally silly and wrong is if minor girls make nude pictures of themselves to sue them for child pornography.
That law is meant to protect kids, not to turn them into criminals.
In the UK that happened. A girl took pictures of herself and 'distributed'them. For that she was sued for distributing child pornography.
A similar case happened in the U.S., a girl was treated like a pedophile for distributing naked photos of herself.
Ok...I guess she was a pedophile, in the same way we have all inappropriately touched a minor by masturbating when we were thirteen...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics-
Some interesting questions /situations. Let's go over them one by one.
Soliciting women to make your own movie with a friend:
Now, as to the actual filming, around here at least(and I assume in most places), you CANNOT simply record yourself having sex with someone that you hired for the purpose just to avoid legal entanglements. This functions the same ways as incorporating oneself to avoid paying taxes- you just cant do it. You CAN, however, star in your friend's film, and he can star in yours. Everything involved must be above board in that you have a lighting person, camera person(and sound person, but nowadays with camera phones being so awesome,you *might* be able to cut that corner, and for the purpose of argument let's say that you are), the talent(your friend and his intimate partner), a director, a producer(both can be you), and maybe the catering person all under contract(notarize it and MAKE SURE NO ONE BUT THE TALENT IS INTIMATE WITH EACH OTHER DURING THE TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED!!) to create a specific film on a specific date at a specific location for x amount of money (get a copy of those checks if you use them and have proof that they were endorsed by the person they were made out to- modern technology helps a great deal with this).
In terms of distribution, one CAN make stuff for their private stash as long as everything is above board- FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NEVER LOSE OR "MISPLACE" YOUR PAPERWORK OR YOU ARE AN EASY TARGET FOR LAWSUITS FROM ANYONE WHO FINDS THE ADULT MATERIAL AND WANTS TO INVESTIGATE! If you want to post it online, you should be good so long as you note in the earlier paperwork that everyone signed (including you) where it is going to be distrubuted (so yes, the old "free porn!" trope is starting to fall apart nowadays as the people at youporn and redtube are being hit with c&ds, although there are a few companies that will allow these sites to host for a brief time period before requesting they take the video down) at the beginning of the film itself where all the paperwork that everyone signed is physically located.
What about stuff done for free?!
Ostensibly, one signs a release stating that they are okay with someone recording them while they are on the premises of a certain location on a certain date and will take no action should this recorded activity be shown/displayed/sold at a later date. In some ways you are signing your life away, although it is understood that one cannot record someone making use of lavatory facilities or making use of illegal substances/partaking in illegal activities. Some places go so far as to denote areas where recording is happening, and that is slowly becoming the standard, if only to avoid sleazy lawsuits.
Verbal contracts are legally binding!
Most porn is worthless!
I would very much love to meet one of my heroines (though much more so for my wife), Annie Sprinkle, who is a certified sex counselor, runs numerous classes on sex toys and paraphernalia, and is also a bit odd/strange.
A friend of mine met her awhile ago and said she was very cool=)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But something else: something I think is totally silly and wrong is if minor girls make nude pictures of themselves to sue them for child pornography.
That law is meant to protect kids, not to turn them into criminals.
In the UK that happened. A girl took pictures of herself and 'distributed'them. For that she was sued for distributing child pornography.A similar case happened in the U.S., a girl was treated like a pedophile for distributing naked photos of herself.
Ok...I guess she was a pedophile, in the same way we have all inappropriately touched a minor by masturbating when we were thirteen...
I would argue that she should know better than to send it to someone who is not a minor, or should. It's a fast track to prison for that individual.
|
|
That appears to be a remnent of some older ways, inspired by times where sex was evil because some holy book said soWell, the holy book said so because it was pretty much the only way to cut down on STDs in an age before penicillin.
Its amazing how much culture comes out of a petrie dish..
Not so sure about that. Non western cultures often had considerably less trepidation about the subject - not all, of course, but many.
A friend of mine met her awhile ago and said she was very cool=)
I would very much love to meet one of my heroines (though much more so for my wife), Annie Sprinkle, who is a certified sex counselor, runs numerous classes on sex toys and paraphernalia, and is also a bit odd/strange.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!
Polaroids? Oh yeah.
My sister in law got kicked out of the house when her mom discovered a PART of a dirty Polaroid she took of herself for her then boyfriend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what the big deal is, those Goats knew exactly what they were getting into when the Barn doors closed.....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The UK case had a 17 year old girl be punished and registered as a sex offender for pictures of herself THAT SHE HAD IN HER OWN MOBILE PHONE... Talk about insanity when a law has that kind of result. To my thinking, a society that even comes close to accepting such vomit is completely deranged. Cheers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter one whit, thejeff. Nothing like this comes out of a law that is anywhere near sane. Prosecutorial discretion??? If that is necessary to justify such a law's existence, the law is utterly and completely corrupt. Once laws get made that start to ruin people's lives WHEN WORKING AS INTENDED, because there is a Higher Purpose (tm) to that law, society borked out a while ago. Those writing such a law are morons or a@%%+~$s, and sadly also those who take it upon themselves to defend such a law. Personally, I would prefer it if laws were not made by complete and utter morons, or despicable, evil crusaders.