3 ms·
That was a lot of rhetoric and hand-waving, but you still haven't proven that it is all abuse, nor have you proven that the examples listed in the OP are clearl
by donaq 18y ago
That was a lot of rhetoric and hand-waving, but you still haven't proven that it is all abuse, nor have you proven that the examples listed in the OP are clearly "that which caused harm or destruction or misfortune" to the people involved, let alone that sex automatically harms or damages minors. While this is merely anecdotal evidence, I do know people who had their first consensual sexual experiences with older partners when they were below the age of 16, and they seem none the worse for wear.
- unalone 18y agoIf talk's to be believed, plenty of people I went to school with had sex at 13-14, and some of them were very happy with those decisions. (As a side note, I find it a little funny that I'm 18, which should be the age that I'm finally able to have sex without it being legally weird, and yet my not being sexually active makes me a late bloomer. Society is odd.)
- ErrantX 18y agoHow many of them photographed & videoed it to sell on the internet? :) (there is a distinction there I think)
- donaq 18y agoNone of them. Granted there is a distinction, but let's assume for the moment we've established that the sexual acts themselves cause no lasting damage. Where, then, does the damage come from? I think a large part of the damage from being exposed comes from the stigma attached to it. In which case I think it can be argued that the evil was committed not by the pornography, but by the people who have viewed and judged it. As Elaine once said in an episode of Seinfeld (The Pick) Because it is not me that is exposed but you. For I have seen the nipple on your soul!