Silk Road forums

Quote from: 7Kz2 on September 01, 2013, 03:25 pm

I found 15 year old girls attractive when I was 15.  Now they're just teenage girls to me.

I'm with you on this. There's a lot more to attraction that the physical looks.

Yeah, a 15 year old can look attractive, but talk to her and you'll see she is still not much more than a young child.

"Has a pretty face, breasts and pubic hair" does not equal "is attractive", in my opinion.

This thread is about CP though, so we are talking mainly about physical looks rather than emotional maturity. But to me, I can't separate the two. Why look at a picture of a 15 year old when you can look at a picture of a 27 year old instead?

Honestly I don't care much about the personality of the adult females in the porn I look at, and I have never once talked to any of them. For me attraction is 80% visual, and I think teenagers and young twenty year olds are more visually appealing. Especially when it comes to porn, that is 100% visual attraction there is nothing else to even take into consideration. The emotional maturity of a girl is not encoded into pictures taken of her, just the way light reflects off of her. I am only being a little sarcastic when I say that I think some people must think Harry Potter is real and living creatures exist in photographs.

Sure when it comes to having real relationships with people there is more to take into account, although visual attraction is still a huge role. For short term sexual relationship visual attraction is pretty close to as much the deciding factor as it is in porn. For long term relationship personality and other factors come into play a lot more. But in the context of porn the argument doesn't make much sense to me, because you don't talk to pictures you just enjoy them. In the context of relationship that is meaningful or even short term it comes into play because you seem to think that 14 and 15 year olds are not mentally developed despite being physically developed. I just don't know that I can agree that they are not mentally developed enough, I think even the medical community says that on average a 15 year old is capable of consenting and will not defer to authority. In the case of a 14 year old it might be more risky that they are taken advantage of, but I think 14 is pretty much the borderline from both physical and mental perspective. Younger than that is not likely to be physically mature enough to be more than starting to develop sexually attractive characteristics (and much younger is not gonna have such characteristics at all), and younger than that is not likely to be mature enough to consent. But I think that is a good argument for the age of consent being 14 instead of 18, perhaps with some restrictions for 14-15 like they are off limits to authority figures and can retroactively revoke consent for a period of time. That is the law in Germany and I think it makes more sense, it is a better balance between protecting children and not demonizing normal men who are not even victimizing children in many cases.

18 = can consent to sex with anyone, cannot retrospectively revoke

16 = can consent to sex except with authority figures, cannot revoke previously given consent in the future (I thought they could have sex with people in authority positions as well but I was mistaken. So Germany actually has four age categories: can consent to anyone, can consent to people not in authority positions, can consent to people not in authority positions but can revoke consent retrospectively, cannot consent).

14 = can consent to sex except with authority figures such as teachers or police, can revoke consent in the future and argue that they were taken advantage of and manipulated due to their age

13 = cannot consent at all

German Law on consent:

2) Where sex occurs between an adult (over 18 or 21) and young persons between
14 and 16, prosecution depends on the following circumstances (Sexual abuse of
young persons Art.182):

For a person over 18 years (young adult and adult) sex with young persons between
14 and 16 is forbidden if accompanied by money or gifts of value, or if the adult takes
advantage of the distressed situation of the young person (eg. homelessness) in order
to procure sex. (An exception *may* be granted if the young person is a prostitute.

In addition to this, it is forbidden for a person over 21 years (adult) to perform any
sexual act with a person under 16, if the young person is not capable of sexual
self-determination; (This determination can only be made after the 'victim' has been
given a psychological examination). This last regulation is pursued only on complaint of
the victim's parents or foster-parents, except for cases of public interest.

The legal age of consent for dependent relationships, (e.g., teacher/student etc) is
18 (Sexual abuse of dependants Art. 174).

and it looks like they also break CP into three categories as well

13 and under = child porn , illegal, strictly prosecuted
14-17 = youth porn, legally ambiguous, tolerated
18+ = legal

I think the following quote shows a funny absurdness to their law though:

Giving access and showing pornography to persons under 18 is forbidden. It is, for
instance, legal for a man or woman to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old, and to
video or film this activity, but it is not legal to show this film to the young person
concerned or to any other person under 18.

Although it is no worse than the USA, where it is legal to look directly at the breasts of a 16 year old in some states but illegal to look at a photograph of them.

It actually looks like it is legal to produce porn of 14 year olds for commercial distribution in Germany, provided they have their parents permission, pass a psychological evaluation and are not financially compensated for it.

So really even the claim that CP is legal in 50% of the world is an understatement, in many European countries it seems they allow porn of 14-17 year olds to be viewed and even produced.

A huge botnet is attacking Tor, nobody is sure exactly what it is doing but some think it could be trying to trace hidden services by tracing to entry guards and knocking them out until the HS's select attacker guards.

This attack still applies to hidden services. Connections to hidden services are not magically protected from timing correlation attacks.

The writing is on the wall for VPN's, Tor , I2P and Proxies of all sorts. They are all dying technologies at best and dead at worst.

coming out of a university they're gonna have to convince me hard that the govt don't have some secret backdoor into this thing. until then i'm remaining skeptical.

Lol dude if you don't trust security software coming out of university you better pack up your bags and go home, or over to I2P at least . Even Freenet has ties to the academic community.

I don't like the way dissent goes about kicking users or whatever. I prefer whitelisting by default, meaning only people who you whitelist can send you messages that you obtain. There is no reason for a group of people to decide who gets to talk, it is up to you to decide who you should listen to.

Oh god, you're completely mad.  I found 15 year old girls attractive when I was 15.  Now they're just teenage girls to me.  Get the hell out of here.

I highly doubt that you don't find that 15 year old girl to be attractive, but feel free to keep lying to yourself (or just others) for whatever reason. Like I said, all research is on my side, blah blah blah, maybe you are one of the exceptionally rare males who is not attracted to 15 year olds but it is highly doubtful given how rare they are.

Over the past few days I came up with a nice analogy to show why thinking with emotions is a bad thing. This idea was brought on by novocaines observation that the victims will never side with me.

Imagine that there is a world owned by the couple Alice and Bob, and they create the laws of the world and enforce them but they only enforce laws that have already been created. Alice and Bob have two young kids, Carol and Dan. One day, Carol decides she wants to try MDMA. Unforunately, due to the war on drugs of Alice and Bob, Carol cannot get MDMA from a legitimate source, and rather gets it from the shady dealer Earl. Except to make a quick buck and duck the law, Earl has passed off some dangerous research chemical as MDMA, and because of this Carol overdoses and dies. Now Alice and Bob are quite emotional people, and as they feel they have been victimized by drug users and drug dealers, they create even more strict laws against drugs. In a big round up of drug dealers, they arrest both Earl and another drug dealer named Fran. Now, Fran only sold high quality drugs and never misrepresented them to try to make a buck at the risk of her customers health. But Alice and Bob don't care because Fran is a drug dealer, and drug dealers killed their little girl. So now Alice and Bob feel emotionally satisfied that they have done something in the name of their daughter, cracked down on drugs, etc. But nothing changes! The drug laws are even more restrictive, people have higher motivation to pass off dangerous legal drugs as saught after substances, and although Earl is rightfully in jail Fran is in jail despite never having caused harm to anybody or wronged anybody at all. But any appeal to logic is seen as crazy by Alice and Bob, after all, drug dealers killed their daughter and they are victims of the drug dealers and will never side with the people who hurt their daughter.

In a more logical world, Alice and Bob would realize that although superficially the reason their daughter died is because of the bad drugs Earl sold her, in reality the reason she died is because there was a war on drugs in the first place. If drugs were not forced to be underground, self regulation of the industry would occur on a much larger scale, people like Earl would not be reputable, people would get brand name drugs from legitimate stores and the quality would be assured as the brand of the company selling the drugs would depend on it. Stores like this would likely be operated by dealers like Fran, and dealers like Earl would never even be part of the equation. So instead of seeing drugs and drug dealers as one big system, Alice and Bob would be better to analyze the *details* of the system, and had they done so they would realize the root cause of the problem was not Earl but rather their policy on drugs in the first place. And assuming they have an emotional rather than logic response, the fact that nothing has really changed is going to lead their other child Dan to be at risk of meeting the same fate as Carol. It becomes a perpetual cycle of tragedies, the tragedies being that kids like Carol and Dan are dying, that innocent people like Fran are going to prison despite not really being bad people, etc. The only thing that changes is the emotional response of Alice and Bob, they *FEEL* that their actions are making a difference despite the fact that their actions are causing this horrible cycle.

The same thing holds for CP as well. Imagine the same characters, except this time Carol is abducted, raped and murdered by Earl (and Fran is now Fred). Now Earl also takes pictures of the molestation of Carol and publishes them on the internet. Fred is a pedophile but he doesn't rape kids because he has the ability to control himself. But he doesn't feel that he causes harm to anybody by looking at their photographs, and he views CP to help him manage his deviant urges, plus it is legal to do so in the Land Of Alice and Bob. Now since Alice and Bob are emotional and have an emotional response, immediately after their daughter is killed they crack down on pedophiles. Now just viewing CP gets a death sentence, and they round up many pedophiles and kill them along with Earl (Although Fred remains undetected). Alice and Bob are still hurt at the loss of their daughter, but they feel better and more in control knowing that they have done something. But the situation has not really been made better, in fact it has been made worse. Fred has always had urges to rape kids, but has kept it in check partially by using pornography as an outlet. He knew in the past that viewing CP was legal and he could not get in trouble for it, but now if he looks at it he risks the same death sentence as someone who actually molests kids. Now maybe he is a good person and decides he still will look at pictures instead of rape kids, because he doesn't want to damage kids. But his motivation for not raping kids just got a lot less. He cannot control his desires and he needs an outlet, he could try to abstain from all such activities but realistically that is just not likely to happen. So maybe he ends up abducting and killing Dan, the other child of Alice and Bob. And the cycle of tragedies continues, kids are abducted and raped and photographed and killed, people have emotional responses and it leads them to hurt a lot of people who are not really doing anything that causes harm to society (all the people who were merely looking at photographs), and indeed they make it MORE likely for such people to START causing actual harm to society (because now they will get the same sentence for viewing images as they will for actually raping kids). The only thing good that comes of it is that Alice and Bob feel more in control, they *FEEL* like they are making a difference, but it is just a delusion, just a feeling, a deceptive emotion that is the opiate they use to mask their pain. In reality they are contributing to the problem, and the cycle will continue over and over and nothing will change but more kids will be hurt and more innocent people will be sent to prison and killed. In a more logical world Alice and Bob would be able to *SEE* that it is not Freds fault that their daughter was killled, sure kill Earl he certainly deserves nothing but death, but he is a different thing than Fred. Alice and Bob will say oh we are the victims of pedophiles how could we ever side with them, but in thinking this way (based off of their emotions) they are contributing to tragedies instead of preventing them.

We need to look at the parts of these things and see what the real problem is. The problem is not drug dealers and drugs, the problem is bastards selling dangerous drugs as less dangerous drugs, the problem is caused by the same war on drugs that people rally for when the problem manifests itself with the death of a child. And then they send more and more innocent people to prison, people who if given a chance would stop the deaths associated with drugs or at least reduce them significantly. The problem is not pedophiles looking at pictures, the problem is people who cannot control themselves and/or have no respect for the life of a human. This problem is intensified by the same war on pedophiles looking at pictures, because it equates them with people who abuse children and if they are seen as equal or punished such that they may as well be equal, there is less motivation for them to not rape kids. If they are seen as just as bad to society as the people actually raping kids, they will internalize that in many cases, they will say I am not going to stop doing things like this because I nearly cannot, and if they think I am as bad as possible for looking at pictures why shouldn't I rape kids? And it takes a truly good person and logical person at that to realize that right and wrong are independent of what this brainwashed society says, because even if society says looking at CP is as bad as raping a child I have to respect the pedophiles who know better than this. And it is the same thing, a bunch of preventable tragedies done in the name of the good feelings of the victims, so the current victims can feel good and feel in control and like they are doing something to help, we let them do things that are not only unhelpful but are counter productive, things that lead to the deaths of children and to the demonization of people who should be seen as neutral or even applauded for knowing that looking at a picture is not the same thing as raping a fucking child.

I would describe the links as a very hot 15 year old actress, a sexually appealing but border line too young 14 year old actress, and a somewhat sexually appealing but needs another year 13 year old actress.

In my community you cant even take a picture at sporting event of a child unless you are licensed, checked by police and have been hired by the properties owner/leaser . Parents cant even take pictures.

And that doesn't seem like hysteria to you?