Wikileaks - "My Life in Child Porn"

[PaperclipGod]

Text

Article was originally written in German, and the above link is to Wikileaks' English translation. It's a long piece, and goes into considerable detail on methods used by child pornographers to produce and safely sell their material. It's telling that the person who wrote this spent 10 years in the industry, and even after that much time, he still basically laughs at government attempts to stop the trade of child porn.

I've excerpted a few paragraphs below where the author has suggested why the current attempts at child porn prevention fail, and how the hysteria surrounding child porn is impacting privacy for legal individuals. One of the best points that this person makes, imo, is in highlighting the hypocritical position of many western governments (including the US) with regards to "age of consent." Or more generally, when a person becomes responsible for their own actions. e.g., We've all heard of cases where an 18 year old is charged with statutory rape and/or child porn production because of his relationship with a 16 or 17 year old. However, we've also all heard of cases where a 13 year old murders someone, and the prosecution (the government) pushes for the kid to be tried as an adult.

FTA:

I have 10 years of experience with the topic, I have talked with incredibly many people about it. What comes out is that about 1% of men have strong pedophile (pre-puberty children) or ephebophile (pubertal children and adolescents) fantasies that do not allowed for a normal life because they have clear sexual preferences. Many report to me being even sexually disgusted by adults even if they are otherwise socially fully integrated. Moreover, up to 29% men (depends on the culture) have occasional fantasies about young people. These fantasies never come up and the people usually lead a normal, inconspicuous life. It is not entirely coincidental that films like "Confessions of a Sixth Form Girl" [original: "Schulmaedchenreport"], etc. were extremely successful ...

If one is heterosexual, he does not fall over every woman. One is also not in love in every woman. A gay man does not rape every man he sees on the street. It is similar for the pedophiles, they do not feel attracted by every child and even find children sometimes antipathic. The media is world-class in undifferentiating reports. People like Dutroux are considered pedophiles even though I see him rather as a dangerous psychopath who targets not only children but also young women. Representatives of child protection organizations want to make us believe that pedophiles have a power problem with adult women. Although this part is quite possible (that pedophiles unconsciously fear adults and children are safe and therefore preferred), I've found out with a large number of pedophiles that they have an absolute REVULSION against adult women. They have also often a collection-, enforcement- or control-related obsessions. Then there are those with a Lolita complex, a strong attraction to virginity and innocence (often happens when people have been brought up religiously strict with strong repression of sexuality, they idealize chastity and usually have a violent, authoritarian mother).

If you want to reduce abuse and child pornography, you must start at the right place: major funds must finally be put in the research flow in order to offer for pedophiles a hope for a decent life (among others in the preference structure education [?] whose understanding is essential for any sexual preference). There must be radical work on stigma. No one will show his true sexual orientation if this can lead to the loss of what he loves and possibly possesses in life. Under such circumstances it is rather a laborious double life to live until he one day perhaps makes a mistake and everything goes public. Pedophiles have been reported to me that they have visited doctors to ask for advice. Some were thrown away and never again asked to appear to their family doctor that had known them for years. I do not know how these doctors and psychotherapists understand the Hippocratic oath but it clearly shows how strong the stigma is.

The possession of child pornography should be decriminalized, and only its production and distribution should remain a criminal offense. Physical violence against a person, no matter what age, should be drastically and severely punished.
...
Instead of spending more and more money in irrational censorship, filtering and witch-hunts for possession of child pornography, this money could be invested in programs that aim to provide a better future and, above all, a better quality of life and the necessary education for poor children and young people. This would already eliminate the families whose motivation is financial. There will, however, always be the models posing provocatively as well as a sympathetic families that allow them to do this. In brief: voluntarily involved children and young people who are having fun - in my opinion, these are not victims. Those who are violently forced into things they do not want are the real victims.

This whole discussion about morality and sexuality is an incredibly stupid thing to which religions have contributed significantly ... One hears different theories from various sources. What is actually harmful for children and adolescents? In the U.S., the sight of a naked human is allegedly harmful to the poor child. Well, in Germany, the Bravo magazine has for decades reprinted pictures of naked girls and boys for the purpose of sexual enlightenment. In Germany, there should therefore be a lot of injured children and adolescents. When I was child, we went with the school to collect waste paper. Here we found the most exciting magazines in the wastepaper... I know very well how this has awakened my interest. On that account, I was really deeply shocked as a child when I had to go to the butcher and saw how animals were handled and killed. Until today, this remains a traumatic experience for me. Today more and more violence is shown freely and at the same time people are lobbying about sexual self-control. It is allowed for everyone to form an opinion about the situation. But it is hardly possible to form an objective view because the access to information is prohibited by the Government.

 

[StageLeft]

I'm not sure the point of decriminalizing possession. Surely the amount of this stuff will go up if that's done. I'm sure that it is an involuntary like for some guys, just as others may like animals or have any other kind of fantasy they cannot control or wish they didn't have. Still, he says that kids who are enjoying this are not victims. I just can't imagine that a 10 year old doing who knows what with a 40 year old on camera with a couple of years won't grow into some sort of demented adult themselves.

It's very hard to measure the statistics behind this, but there is such a huge stigma on child porn that I bet the "witch hunts" do help keep it at bay. I would not even know where to begin to find it and would be constantly fearful of my IP being shared somewhere and ending up on the 6:00 news. I bet this scares a lot of would-be consumers of the material, and as we've seen with things like this, to drug use, if the demand is there the supply will be.

I'd probably like to see punishment of this stuff even more severe, but the approach being used now of the witch hunts do often overshoot; we see child porn and "protect the children" being used as the vanguard on what ends up being attacks on civil liberties everywhere. The second somebody pushing some legislation mentions it protecting kids it's an argument-shutting-up trump card and it's ridiculous.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: SkoorbI just can't imagine that a 10 year old doing who knows what with a 40 year old on camera with a couple of years won't grow into some sort of demented adult themselves.

It's not just you. Stories of abused children and how they turn out prove this is bad.

Of course they want to decriminalize possession. That would open up their market big time.

 

[PaperclipGod]

The author actually suggests harsher penalties for the perpetrators of sexual assault, no matter the age of the victim. By making possession legal, though, you prevent government from using "the children" as an excuse for creating privacy-invading laws, databases, or agencies.

It actually seems similar to the debate over legalization of marijuana -- don't punish the people who choose to expose themselves to weed, punish the people who produce and distribute it. They're the ones who use drug money to create huge, violent cartels... they directly hurt other peoples lives. The consumer, however, is only affecting himself. Yes, drug money originates with the consumer, but if weed is legalized those cartels no longer have a source of income.

Besides, doesn't it make more sense to focus all your efforts on catching the people who produce this crap than on the people who view it, intentionally or not? Imagine if all the resources the world currently spends on busting perverts for whacking off in their parents basement were instead spent on tracking and punishing the people producing it.

 

[JSt0rm]

I dunno I think this stuff should be illegal. When he talks about young people having fun I mean me and my gf had fun when we were 16 this is normal stuff. Us having sex on camera at 16 or her having sex with a 40 year old is not "having fun"

 

[fleshconsumed]

Was a very long read, but a good one.

Leaving aside CP issues for a moment, author makes a lot of good points about abusing CP laws. There have been a case of a man convicted of CP because he owned couple of hentai comic books. This is a serious abuse of the spirit of the law. No children were harmed in the production of those comics, yet, the man was still labeled as child predator. For more abuses you don't have to go look far. Sexting is another abuse of government power. If a high school child takes a naked picture of her/himself, there was no child abuse involved, so why are these children being prosecuted? So if a child takes a picture of himself and it's child pornography, does this mean that if he masturbates and is not of legal age yet he should be labeled as child abuser? Fucking ridiculous. What's worse, we have a thread in Politics forum about prosecutor pressing charges against 15 year girl who took a picture of herself in a bra. Yet, this again is being treated as child pornography? WTF.

The point is that child pornography laws are all too often abused for personal and political gains. Government officials get bonus points and get to pass monitoring laws all in the name of "protecting the children". I bet the prosecutor in question couldn't care less about the girl in a bra, he was simply posturing to advance his career and in the process ruined lives of innocent children who will be labeled child abusers for life. You want to talk about child abuse, how is this not child abuse? Or look at the broader scale dslreports published a story how German government raided wikileaks website because it published proposed block lists. Did it raid servers because it did not want distribution of CP websites to fall into the wrong hands? Maybe, but not likely, anyone with access to google can find those sites in about 30 seconds. More than likely it raided wikileaks websites because wikileaks uncovered that those blocklists also contained "regular pornography, some anti-abortion websites, a few anti-government blogs, as well as euthanasia and poker websites". So not only German/Australian governments want to block information to legitimate, but undesirable websites, they also abuse their power in order to prevent public from knowing about these abuses.

This is a serious case of WHAT THE FUCK.

I feel that the discussion of CP has been obscured by the minority who are screaming the loudest. They scream really loud about protecting the children, but in the end they are just using the issue to further their personal career and to push their hidden agendas. What's worse is you can't even discuss it without being labeled as a sympathizer, and this is wrong. If something is a problem, it needs to be fixed, and if the only way it will get fixed is by understanding the problem, researching it, and talking about it.



About moral issues. If a 40 year old photographs 15 year old it is a child abuse. However, the article mentions that some distributors simply give the girl camera, and tell her to go take some pictures, then they publish those pictures. Is this still abuse? No one is forcing the girl to take pictures of herself, she is doing it voluntarily on her own free will. There is absolutely no child abuse here. It may be a poor decision on the girl's part, but she is not being forced into anything. Should this still be treated as child abuse? I don't know. But what I do know is that people are often driven by preconceptions forced down their throats by the small minority and refuse to even discuss the problem, and that is definitely wrong.

 

[silverpig]

Definitely marked for later reading.

 

[Dari]

Shit like this should stay illegal, no matter if the feelings are natural or not. We're dealing with minors here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Dari
Shit like this should stay illegal, no matter if the feelings are natural or not. We're dealing with minors here.

One of the points the article made is "minor" depends on what country you live in. Who says America's version of under 18 is correct? You feel its correct because you've been conditioned by the laws of our country. The fact of the matter is there really isnt much difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old. Also, we tend to lump hebephilia and ephebophilia together with pedophilia, which are very different problems (or symptoms if you will).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Text

Article was originally written in German, and the above link is to Wikileaks' English translation. It's a long piece, and goes into considerable detail on methods used by child pornographers to produce and safely sell their material. It's telling that the person who wrote this spent 10 years in the industry, and even after that much time, he still basically laughs at government attempts to stop the trade of child porn.

I've excerpted a few paragraphs below where the author has suggested why the current attempts at child porn prevention fail, and how the hysteria surrounding child porn is impacting privacy for legal individuals. One of the best points that this person makes, imo, is in highlighting the hypocritical position of many western governments (including the US) with regards to "age of consent." Or more generally, when a person becomes responsible for their own actions. e.g., We've all heard of cases where an 18 year old is charged with statutory rape and/or child porn production because of his relationship with a 16 or 17 year old. However, we've also all heard of cases where a 13 year old murders someone, and the prosecution (the government) pushes for the kid to be tried as an adult.

FTA:

I have 10 years of experience with the topic, I have talked with incredibly many people about it. What comes out is that about 1% of men have strong pedophile (pre-puberty children) or ephebophile (pubertal children and adolescents) fantasies that do not allowed for a normal life because they have clear sexual preferences. Many report to me being even sexually disgusted by adults even if they are otherwise socially fully integrated. Moreover, up to 29% men (depends on the culture) have occasional fantasies about young people. These fantasies never come up and the people usually lead a normal, inconspicuous life. It is not entirely coincidental that films like "Confessions of a Sixth Form Girl" [original: "Schulmaedchenreport"], etc. were extremely successful ...

If one is heterosexual, he does not fall over every woman. One is also not in love in every woman. A gay man does not rape every man he sees on the street. It is similar for the pedophiles, they do not feel attracted by every child and even find children sometimes antipathic. The media is world-class in undifferentiating reports. People like Dutroux are considered pedophiles even though I see him rather as a dangerous psychopath who targets not only children but also young women. Representatives of child protection organizations want to make us believe that pedophiles have a power problem with adult women. Although this part is quite possible (that pedophiles unconsciously fear adults and children are safe and therefore preferred), I've found out with a large number of pedophiles that they have an absolute REVULSION against adult women. They have also often a collection-, enforcement- or control-related obsessions. Then there are those with a Lolita complex, a strong attraction to virginity and innocence (often happens when people have been brought up religiously strict with strong repression of sexuality, they idealize chastity and usually have a violent, authoritarian mother).

If you want to reduce abuse and child pornography, you must start at the right place: major funds must finally be put in the research flow in order to offer for pedophiles a hope for a decent life (among others in the preference structure education [?] whose understanding is essential for any sexual preference). There must be radical work on stigma. No one will show his true sexual orientation if this can lead to the loss of what he loves and possibly possesses in life. Under such circumstances it is rather a laborious double life to live until he one day perhaps makes a mistake and everything goes public. Pedophiles have been reported to me that they have visited doctors to ask for advice. Some were thrown away and never again asked to appear to their family doctor that had known them for years. I do not know how these doctors and psychotherapists understand the Hippocratic oath but it clearly shows how strong the stigma is.

The possession of child pornography should be decriminalized, and only its production and distribution should remain a criminal offense. Physical violence against a person, no matter what age, should be drastically and severely punished.
...
Instead of spending more and more money in irrational censorship, filtering and witch-hunts for possession of child pornography, this money could be invested in programs that aim to provide a better future and, above all, a better quality of life and the necessary education for poor children and young people. This would already eliminate the families whose motivation is financial. There will, however, always be the models posing provocatively as well as a sympathetic families that allow them to do this. In brief: voluntarily involved children and young people who are having fun - in my opinion, these are not victims. Those who are violently forced into things they do not want are the real victims.

This whole discussion about morality and sexuality is an incredibly stupid thing to which religions have contributed significantly ... One hears different theories from various sources. What is actually harmful for children and adolescents? In the U.S., the sight of a naked human is allegedly harmful to the poor child. Well, in Germany, the Bravo magazine has for decades reprinted pictures of naked girls and boys for the purpose of sexual enlightenment. In Germany, there should therefore be a lot of injured children and adolescents. When I was child, we went with the school to collect waste paper. Here we found the most exciting magazines in the wastepaper... I know very well how this has awakened my interest. On that account, I was really deeply shocked as a child when I had to go to the butcher and saw how animals were handled and killed. Until today, this remains a traumatic experience for me. Today more and more violence is shown freely and at the same time people are lobbying about sexual self-control. It is allowed for everyone to form an opinion about the situation. But it is hardly possible to form an objective view because the access to information is prohibited by the Government.

In every study i have ever seen the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are married men with children who use they own children.

Decriminalising it will lead to a greater request for the material and hence more child pornography being made.

Common sense always trumphs idiocy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Dari
Shit like this should stay illegal, no matter if the feelings are natural or not. We're dealing with minors here.

One of the points the article made is "minor" depends on what country you live in. Who says America's version of under 18 is correct? You feel its correct because you've been conditioned by the laws of our country. The fact of the matter is there really isnt much difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old. Also, we tend to lump hebephilia and ephebophilia together with pedophilia, which are very different problems (or symptoms if you will).

Name ONE nation where it's legal to have anyone under the age of 18 engage in pornographic material.

I'll save you some time by telling you that you can exclude the EU nations.

Don't bring up the legal age for having sex, it's not the same thing.

And there is something seriously wrong with you if you don't get the difference in maturity between a 15 year old and an 18 year old, there is LESS of a difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old.

I'm going to go with "there is something seriously wrong with you"

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Dari
Shit like this should stay illegal, no matter if the feelings are natural or not. We're dealing with minors here.

One of the points the article made is "minor" depends on what country you live in. Who says America's version of under 18 is correct? You feel its correct because you've been conditioned by the laws of our country. The fact of the matter is there really isnt much difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old. Also, we tend to lump hebephilia and ephebophilia together with pedophilia, which are very different problems (or symptoms if you will).

Name ONE nation where it's legal to have anyone under the age of 18 engage in pornographic material.

I'll save you some time by telling you that you can exclude the EU nations.

Don't bring up the legal age for having sex, it's not the same thing.

And there is something seriously wrong with you if you don't get the difference in maturity between a 15 year old and an 18 year old, there is LESS of a difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old.

I'm going to go with "there is something seriously wrong with you"

Well, according to this:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

France is 15, Germany is 14/16, etc.


Edit: I see you say not to bring up the age to have sex... but they often go hand in hand.

I personally don't care or see a difference. Should be the age of consensual sex, which is way too high of an age in the US to me.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

In every study i have ever seen the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are married men with children who use they own children.

Decriminalising it will lead to a greater request for the material and hence more child pornography being made.

Common sense always trumphs idiocy.

Could you give some links to those studies? Unless they're a lot different from the ones I'm familiar with, they're just another example of "correlation != causation". The "overwhelming majority of pedophiles are married with children" because those are the ones that get caught. Do you think a group of researchers just put a want-ad in the paper asking Pedophiles to volunteer for a study on sexual deviants, and then they all just showed up? Not likely. All of the research I've seen is based on subjects who were convicted of molesting a kid. You can't generalize to the entire population from those few. That's a bit like doing a study on all of the priests who've been caught molesting altar boys, and then drawing the conclusion that all priests are child-molesting deviants.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Name ONE nation where it's legal to have anyone under the age of 18 engage in pornographic material.

I'll save you some time by telling you that you can exclude the EU nations.

Don't bring up the legal age for having sex, it's not the same thing.

And there is something seriously wrong with you if you don't get the difference in maturity between a 15 year old and an 18 year old, there is LESS of a difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old.

I'm going to go with "there is something seriously wrong with you"

You're getting way off topic, here... did you actually read the article??

 

[cubby1223]

Visions of Cartman
http://media.southparkstudios....06/406_poster_cart.gif

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Dari
Shit like this should stay illegal, no matter if the feelings are natural or not. We're dealing with minors here.

One of the points the article made is "minor" depends on what country you live in. Who says America's version of under 18 is correct? You feel its correct because you've been conditioned by the laws of our country. The fact of the matter is there really isnt much difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old. Also, we tend to lump hebephilia and ephebophilia together with pedophilia, which are very different problems (or symptoms if you will).

Name ONE nation where it's legal to have anyone under the age of 18 engage in pornographic material.

I'll save you some time by telling you that you can exclude the EU nations.

Don't bring up the legal age for having sex, it's not the same thing.

And there is something seriously wrong with you if you don't get the difference in maturity between a 15 year old and an 18 year old, there is LESS of a difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old.
I'm going to go with "there is something seriously wrong with you"

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[n yusef]

I understand the author's arguments and agree with some of them, but strongly disagree that kids who "enjoy" the production of CP are not victims. It is likely that they will abuse children when they grow up, and almost certain that they will have hang-ups and mental illness as a result of the abuse.

One of my friends was repeatedly molested by his uncle when he was 6, and he tells me that he didn't cry or scream or tell his abuser "no." Most children respect authority, especially family, and believe abusers when they tell them that what they are doing is normal. Contrary to this guy's claim, it deeply troubles my friend that he didn't directly object to his abuse. It's common for victims of rape and sexual abuse to feel ashamed of themselves for not objecting to their abuse until later.

Now, he has some serious issues with sex and physical intimacy. How traumatic an event is is not a simply a function of how much one cries or protests while it's happening.

 

[ericlp]

Well, there is a fine line here...

I dunno the ratio of people looking at the material VS. the people that participate in the action of making the material OR does looking at it make one act out his/her fantasy in real life? I'm not up on any of this.

I guess where I stand is.... If she/he is developed and they are consenting then... I find it REALLY hard to put someone away that has a kiddy porn mag or DVD in his/her house. That's my take on all of it even tho I don't get my jolly's watching porn. I just think if a normal person wants to buy a 15 year old porn mag then that should be his/her thing.

Question is... Where the hell do you draw the line? Tracy Lords was around 15 or 16 when she made her first porn movie. she lied about her age. but that was a long time ago. How many others have done the same?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Well, there is a fine line here...

I dunno the ratio of people looking at the material VS. the people that participate in the action of making the material OR does looking at it make one act out his/her fantasy in real life? I'm not up on any of this.

I guess where I stand is.... If she/he is developed and they are consenting then... I find it REALLY hard to put someone away that has a kiddy porn mag or DVD in his/her house. That's my take on all of it even tho I don't get my jolly's watching porn. I just think if a normal person wants to buy a 15 year old porn mag then that should be his/her thing.

Question is... Where the hell do you draw the line? Tracy Lords was around 15 or 16 when she made her first porn movie. she lied about her age. but that was a long time ago. How many others have done the same?

Thats the thing. We in this country seem to think if someone is under 18, they arent capable of consenting to sex with someone OVER 18. If they do its because they were manipulated. Utter bullshit. Our views on consent are seriously fucked up. But G'damn if a 15 year old goes and massacres a family and we charge them as an adult! They sure know what they were doing then!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Thats the thing. We in this country seem to think if someone is under 18, they arent capable of consenting to sex with someone OVER 18. If they do its because they were manipulated. Utter bullshit. Our views on consent are seriously fucked up. But G'damn if a 15 year old goes and massacres a family and we charge them as an adult! They sure know what they were doing then!

Well the logic isn't that every person under 18 is incapable of consenting to sex, it's basically the idea that we're sure by the age of 18 that nearly everyone IS capable of informed consent to sex. Sort of erring on the side of caution with the age thing. While I totally agree it's a really imperfect measure, I have a hard time thinking of an alternative.

Oh, but yeah the whole charging a 15 year old as an adult thing is absolute, utter bullshit.

 

[wwswimming]

i had a debate about this with a friend in SF a few years ago.

some city official was caught with a 15 or 16 year old woman, teenage person, girl, whatever word you want to use.

i expressed little surprise but what my friend wanted to hear was Outrage.

once a girl has the body of a woman, they are attractive, period, in the sense that they will turn a guys head.

e.g. the Reef Girls
http://reef.com/

or this week's People magazine cover person, Valerie Bertinelli - who is 50. some of the Reef Girls are younger than 18, I think.

 

[OCGuy]

Chemical castration sounds about right.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Thats the thing. We in this country seem to think if someone is under 18, they arent capable of consenting to sex with someone OVER 18. If they do its because they were manipulated. Utter bullshit. Our views on consent are seriously fucked up. But G'damn if a 15 year old goes and massacres a family and we charge them as an adult! They sure know what they were doing then!

Well the logic isn't that every person under 18 is incapable of consenting to sex, it's basically the idea that we're sure by the age of 18 that nearly everyone IS capable of informed consent to sex. Sort of erring on the side of caution with the age thing. While I totally agree it's a really imperfect measure, I have a hard time thinking of an alternative.

Oh, but yeah the whole charging a 15 year old as an adult thing is absolute, utter bullshit.

I was going to be much less kind in my reponse.. I agree with the general point that its a bullshit contradiction, but I don't think the solution is just to start allowing child porn.....ffs

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
i had a debate about this with a friend in SF a few years ago.

some city official was caught with a 15 or 16 year old woman, teenage person, girl, whatever word you want to use.

i expressed little surprise but what my friend wanted to hear was Outrage.

once a girl has the body of a woman, they are attractive, period, in the sense that they will turn a guys head.

e.g. the Reef Girls
http://reef.com/

or this week's People magazine cover person, Valerie Bertinelli - who is 50. some of the Reef Girls are younger than 18, I think.

turning the head and the person going and having sex with them is not the same thing

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Thats the thing. We in this country seem to think if someone is under 18, they arent capable of consenting to sex with someone OVER 18. If they do its because they were manipulated. Utter bullshit. Our views on consent are seriously fucked up. But G'damn if a 15 year old goes and massacres a family and we charge them as an adult! They sure know what they were doing then!

Well the logic isn't that every person under 18 is incapable of consenting to sex, it's basically the idea that we're sure by the age of 18 that nearly everyone IS capable of informed consent to sex. Sort of erring on the side of caution with the age thing. While I totally agree it's a really imperfect measure, I have a hard time thinking of an alternative.

Oh, but yeah the whole charging a 15 year old as an adult thing is absolute, utter bullshit.

I was going to be much less kind in my reponse.. I agree with the general point that its a bullshit contradiction, but I don't think the solution is just to start allowing child porn.....ffs

I was commenting on the AOC specifically. I didnt address legalising underage porn. They do tie together. Most people think 15 is too young, but consider this: how many 15 year olds 1. dont know what sex is, and 2. dont know what rape is. I know it may sound like a ridiculous question, but its a question of consent. My point, and I believe that of the OP, is that a 15 year old certainly can give consent, and know what theyre doing.

edit: I remembered this study a few years ago and found it on google:

UK: Age of Consent should be lowered

Equality at 16 is a great step forward. But what about the
sexual rights and welfare of those under 16? Although we
may wish otherwise, nowadays most teenagers ? gay and
straight ? are having sex well before the age of 16. Many
are sexually illiterate because of inadequate sex education.
Few receive detailed safer sex advice, and most have no
ready access to condoms. The age of consent is often used
as a justification.

Sixteen is a totally arbitrary age of consent. It originates
from 1885, when consent was raised from 13. There is,
however, no medical or psychological evidence that 16 (as
opposed to 14 or any other age) is the age of sexual or
emotional maturity.
The legal effect of consent at 16 is to criminalise youngsters
below that age who have consensual sex. The law says that
no person under 16 is capable of giving their consent to a
sexual act. Any such consensual relationship is automatically
deemed an indecent assault. Two 14 year olds who
have a mutually agreed relationship risk maximum penalties
ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment (depending on
their sex and the nature of their sexual acts).

The vast majority of young people back a reduction in the
consent law. In November 2000, a poll of 42,000 girls aged
12 to 16 found that 87 per cent think the age of consent of
16 is too high. Four out of five teenagers responding to a
similar survey by the British Youth Council a few years ago
favoured a legal limit lower than 16.
A switch to consent at 14 would achieve two positive
things: it would reduce the criminalisation of young people
under 16 who have consenting sex, and remove the legal
obstacles to earlier, more effective sex education in schools.
Many teachers are reluctant to give frank advice to pupils
below 16 because they fear being prosecuted by the police
or sued by disgruntled parents for aiding and abetting illegal
sexual acts. A reduction to 14 (plus the sliding-scale system)
would give teachers greater confidence to provide pupils
under the age of 16 with the explicit, detailed advice that is
essential for their sexual health and well-being.

Critics say an age of consent of 16 is necessary to safeguard
the vulnerable. The consent laws are, however, a wholly
inadequate protection. Despite having had a heterosexual
age of consent of 16 for over a hundred years, it has not
stopped the abuse of under-age girls. Abusers ignore the
law. Even if consent was raised to 25 it would not stamp
out abuse.
The key to protecting teenagers is education and empowerment.
A reduction in the age of consent to 14 must therefore
go in tandem with extending sex education to tackle
abuse issues. Young people need to be given the skills and
confidence to resist and report unwanted sexual advances.
Schools should be required to teach pupils how to deal with
sex pests, and to offer sexual assertiveness training so they
feel confident to say ?no? to people who try to pressure them
into having sex.
Canada, Germany, Italy and seven other European countries
already have an equal age of consent of 14, which applies
either in all or some circumstances. This policy is supported
by a broad consensus among political parties, child
welfare groups and education authorities. Why? Because it
works. Compared to Britain, most of these countries have
fewer teenage pregnancies, abortions and HIV infections.
In the Netherlands, the teen pregnancy rate is seven times
less than in the UK, and the average age of first sexual intercourse
is slightly higher. This debunks the claim that a
reduction to 14 will encourage earlier sexual experimentation
and promiscuity.