legality question .

[ziucca]

hi guys.
I'm totally confused about the legality according modern BS , of enjoying admiring young girls.
On one hand you have 10yold gymnastic girls instructed , to do spreads and pouts - 'AT THE JUDGES ' right !
You have the cameraman zooming in on the spreads of 9yrold gymnasts , putting the pics in mags - on the events tv ads . Their in skimpy tight clothes , hell they design them that way , the girls choose to ware them that way and train for years to show us their goodies .
On another hand you have designers and society dressing and making more and more extremely sexy clothes for younger and younger girls .
Then you have the girls themselves , young girls love being admired , having their pics taken even 6 or 7 year olds . They are fully aware from 2 or 3 onwards about being female don't worry about that one.
Hell my daughter and her friends are 3 times hornier than I am they literally put me to shame . They take any op they can get their hands on to flaunt it or get a peak .
On the next hand nature it's very self has created girls as beautiful as they are from almost any age , unlike allot of animals that can be pretty off looking until they mature .
Then you have older women continually commenting on how handsome one of the grandsons is or this one or that even if their 8 or 9yrld .
Then - we have the f'n law makers telling everyone we are not suppose to notice the beauty in a young girl.
To me this goes against everything nature and everything on the other hand , society is creating and literally doing - it makes no sense .
Then you have bikini contest and things like junior idol .
In movies and even on the news , reporters , cameramen , will leterally film up a young girls legs or even try for upskirts and then put it on the news in some interview or in some movie .
If their not gorgeous and we're not suppose to notice them - then where does all this come from , you see my point , it's crayness. Yet we might run the risk of getting hawled away if we look at them. Society tells us and shows us that they are indeed very sexy.

But for me - where do I stand in such a do gooder , sickening overly lawed place like Australia or the UK .
Am I according to these wankers anyway - allowed to admire girls like junior idol - or not ??????????
It's crazy .
I know it's probably been asked here many times and in many shapes and forms , I've found a few threads here and in many other places , but I'm as clear as mud.

Thanks guys .
Ziucca.

 

[th0r4z1ne]

heh
who said lawmakers need working brains ?
this just proof - lawmakers just need to breath an t least 1 workin hand fer sign laws - brains fer stand what sign no needed :lols:

 

[porkar]

We should all go around naked again so the human body is not such a mystery; if it becomes a common sight we won't be so excited by it every time we see it.

 

[ziucca]

Yeah your right.
Countries like France, Rio, lots of others , girls beach in G-strings, nude , older girls topless, nude, whatever they feel like , it's nothin.
And it's nothin to like them or to feel something or admire whatever they make you feel and yet . Often zero r***s or Western BS with any of the crap they force on us in Western style countries . Look it up !

They even learn to dance at 6 or 7 -talking hip grinding tease stuff just like the big girls , what's that one called , g strings the lot, everyone enjoys it .
Yet again any troubles they do have are a fraction of Western countries.
That's just nature and they know it and don't have a problem with it or it them.

But what's forced on us in being told what we are or aren't suppose to think, feel , ware or act [ when it suits them that is ] - as in the gymnastics point above and many others , just hypercritical garbage .
Pronlem is , try telling a court or the average person on the street that one though eh !

 

[shagger]

young kids below 16 shouldn't be depicted sexually, its sick

 

[th0r4z1ne]

young kids below 16 shouldn't be depicted sexually, its sick

MEDIAS do that - then complains with us if we feel them sexy - all bummers :spit:

 

[RahXephon]

uhm, i have no intentions to be rude, but i must say it in some way, so .....

i see, more and more and more, sexuals (or maybe just "sexy", if you prefer) models, presented on ads, tv, walls, and so on, always more young (just remember, now, a campaign of ads for sexy panties ..... the model was never shooted frontally, only from back, naked, apart the panties ..... after 6 months, the campaign was banned cause they discovered that the actress was 15 ..... after 6 months, LOL) ..... see products made explicitly for give a "sexy look" to kids ..... seeing, also if masked, new sex toys that can be used not just from adults, but also from kids, and so on .....

and then, see govs and laws always more hard and angry condemning "pedophiles" (the use of the term is wrong, but this is a different question) ..... peoples suspected to be maniacs just for caress or kiss in public THEIR OWN KIDS ! .....

now ..... it's just that i am wrong, or this actual so-called "civil society" need to be a bit cleared from hypocrit and false moralists and corrupted politicians ? ..... maybe with a little revolution ..... or, maybe, with some old-style peoples-burning in the middle of the city squares, with politicians, false moralists and patented idiots masked as "experts" used as combustible ? (so, at least for one time in their life, they can be helpful for something, LOL)

again, sorry if this look a bit rude, but is just that what they make me feel

btw, before someone ask, NO, this is NOT a defense of the so-called "pedophilia" ..... is just a hope that something happens for take back a bit of intelligence and responsibility (the true ones, not the actual ones ) in the society where we live .....

 

[bobtoobe]

I couldn't agree with the writer more; lil girls are groomed to look and act older. Why? Ever see how they dress and make up for lil girl pageants, no one can tell me that's not sexual and the parents know it. Aren't we supposed to look at them. There's no way we can't look at those secret places when they parade lil girls around in swim suit competitions or in tight tight spandex (I'm getting hot!!!!) while doing gymnastics. If there crothes weren't meant to be looked at in those outfits they should where cups.
There, I got that off my chest thanks

 

[handyman]

...On one hand you have 10yold gymnastic girls instructed , to do spreads and pouts - 'AT THE JUDGES ' right !
You have the cameraman zooming in on the spreads of 9yrold gymnasts , putting the pics in mags - on the events tv ads . Their in skimpy tight clothes , hell they design them that way , the girls choose to ware them that way and train for years to show us their goodies ....

LOL I had to comment on your first point cos it's so funny...

You're talking about gymnastics!

The gymnasts are young and small because physics laws say their lighter and smaller frame is ideal for such routines.

They don't spread their legs, they stretch them! They're displaying their flexibility!

They need to perform in front of judges because their performance get's judged by them.

The cameraman I admit does sometimes seem to zoom in a little too far...

And as for the clothing, are they supposed to do all that shit in jeans???

Not saying it's all pure and innocent, but I think maybe you're looking into it a bit too much...

You don't work for Fox News do you??
:snicker:

 

[Mookie]

You don't work for Fox News do you??
:snicker:

Handyman..... you kill us with your wit!! :snicker2:

 

[forcedcunnilingus]

Rant coming, be warned.

for a moment just consider what you can get in trouble for, not what is right or logical.

in UK, no 1st amendment, harsh laws

in USA, people vs. Ferber and us. vs Ashcroft still stand.
however, State law has always hated various federal laws and especially federal case law. The example of Roe Vs. Wade is familiar. Many states infringe on the federal case law and only those defendants with $s or the wonderful ACLU can defend themselves even though the state law is selfconsciously unconstitutional. This is activist legislation, and prosecution, meant to establish precedents that could never stand if the Fed case law were to be fairly weighed. But states never never weigh Fed case law, they do as they please and then the defendant has to appeal to Fed district, and appellate, and supreme court, a phyrric victory if you can even get there.

SO the states and prosecutors even admit that they do not love or care about or follow law. One said in his press statement that "it sounds corny, but I try to do what I think is right." Exactly. No rule of law at all.

BUt outside the US the actual law is concerned with infringing the pursuit of happiness, not a right anywhere but the usa. USA law is supposed to be about protecting the models from harm, a valuable and real concern. But of course the states don't care about that, they want to prevent people from being physically excited by pictures of underage models. This means that the pictures don't always even have to be revealing! People vs. Gagnon -- girls were in bikinis, he went down anyway.

People vs. "True Teens" site, no case found, charges all dismissed, but defendant was ruined anyway, all photo equipment "accidentally" damaged in evidence room, records smashed, life ruined, but no law violated, just conservative enforcement of what "I think is right" per the prosecutor.

In recent cases prosecutors have gotten in the press for inentionally withholding exculpatory evidence, leaking damaging information to the press against state law, attempting to try the case in the press. In one case the defendant was former Federal Judge Alvarez, destroyed by prosecutor releasing information that he had porno on his laptop. Being a public figure poor Alvarez committed suicide. ANy problem for the prosecutor who released information to the press, in a press conference no less? Of course not. The president is not above the law, nor the vice president, but your local prosecutor is way above the law and you should be aware of this. 2 prosecutors convicted a man of murder. After 10 years in jail, dna frees him. THey withheld mucho exculpatory evidence. Any problem? Naw, they are judges now, no problem.

Many respectible and brave law enforcement officers, but prosecution is a political office, and performs scapegoating because that is always popular.

Read Rene Girard's The Scapegoat, a work of Roman Catholic theology but fascinating and highly relevant to this issue. COmpare A Delusion of Satan -- The Complete Story of the Salem Witch trials by Frances Hill. This what law is about. They chained a 6 year old girl to the wall in a hole in the ground called the Salem Village jail. SHe was there 8 months, never unchained from that wall all that time. Scapegoats rarely put up a spirited defence. Think of Jesus saying "that's what you say" to Pilate. Galileo retracting his observations. Some of the "witches" confessed to avoid torture. Many brace Jews fought back against the Nazis, but most did not, understandably. Oscar Wilde in jail for homosexuality. The Knights Templar, tortured for crimes they certainly did not commit.

Giordano Bruno, tortured for 7 years, would not recant his crime. A Roman Catholic Priest, he was the first human being to realize and say that "all the stars are suns." Holding someone's feet to the fire is no mere expression, it was one of the wonderful discoveries of the Roman Inquisition, who burned Bruno after 7 years of torture. He never recanted. They pierced his tongue with an iron bar as they led him to the stake so that he could not speak to the crowd. These are the good guys, the Christians.
That was in 1600, but they would do it now if they could. The Jesus Seminar was scholars discussing the interesting observations of Morton Smith's Jesus the Magician. Now there are books attacking the scholars of the Seminar -- not really their observations, of course -- as being immoral. A cottage industry in poor scholars being paid bucks to attack good scholars. Freedom of thought. They can't burn you anymore, but they want to. Read The Jesus Myth, a recent summary of the consequences of decades of scholarship informed by the clued-in observations of Jesus the Magician. Read it before they burn it and its author with it.

The "junior" stuff in this forum -- there is some evidence that attraction does not lead to molestation and that attraction is not caused by media imagery anyway. Male sex offenders do not get created by this sort of thing -- at least there seems to be no data to indicate that. But think of common sense. Until recently it was common sense that homosexuals should not be allowed to teach grade school. Still not allowed in boy/girl scouting. Common sense can learn, but never learns by thinking. People would rather do anything rather than use their intelligence to arrive at a position. That's why there are so many highly intelligent people defending fundamentalism and attacking Darwin. Yet not one used his or her intelligence to arrive at their position. Supposedly 60% of USA does not believe Darwin, yet 0% of that 60 % has used their intelligence to arrive at their position. Monkey trial 1 & 2. Lock up the teachers. You can't say that.

Was is das, das denken? What is this, this "thinking?" asks Heidegger. He suggests that thinking has not yet begun.