Sluthate.com

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I found a study from the D.C. Journal of Medicine that says you're full of shit.

See cited and everything.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/03/us-child-porn-idUSBRE88202J20120903

(Reuters Health) - A commonly used method of judging a woman's sexual maturation may not be good enough in child pornography prosecutions.

That, at least, is what a group of pediatric endocrinologists concluded from a study of more than 500 Playboy centerfolds.

"So often these people get convicted on what I refer to as felonious bad taste," said Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "They're downloading stuff that isn't very nice, but isn't illegal."

In many cases, prosecutors are basing their cases against people who have downloaded images, and don't have a way to confirm the subjects' ages.

In a study published online today in the journal Pediatrics, Rosenbloom and his colleagues write that they were prompted to examine "547 images with breast exposure from an anthology of the monthly centerfold illustrations in Playboy magazine from December 1953 to December 2007" because Rosenbloom had seen the so-called Tanner scale misused in trials.

The scale, published in 1969 by Dr. James Tanner and a colleague, describes five stages in the development of male and female sexual characteristics such as the shape of breasts and presence of pubic hair. Stage 5 is referred to as "mature," leading to some confusion over whether all women over 18 were in that stage.

The authors chose Playboy centerfolds because publisher Hugh Hefner is known for being scrupulous about only having models over 18. (The study may be the only one in the scientific literature to cite 2007's "Playboy; The Complete Centerfolds.")

When four pediatric endocrinologists looked at the centerfolds, however, at least one of them thought more than a quarter were Tanner stage 4. That kind of evidence, argued Rosenbloom, who has testified on behalf of defendants in such cases, has been used to bring people to trial and even convict them, based on the false idea that all women over 18 were Tanner stage 5.
 
No, I want the production of CP to be illegal, I totally know that producing CP must remain illegal. The act of viewing something is not the same as the act of creating something. A lot of people conflate CP into one thing, but the reality is that it is many different individual things. You need to be able to separate things like possession from viewing to be able to understand my arguments, a lot of people seem incapable of this unfortunately.

So you don't believe that accessory to a crime is a problem? That's fucked bro.
 
what a surprise, just turned 20 and my attitude is "teenagerlike"
anyway, being older doesn't excuse any of you from being completely deluded about women

95cbb05435.jpg


This is your face to me, now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back