Porn Star Blu Kennedy arrested with boyfriend for possessing Child Porn

[+ José Soplanucas]

It's not just a matter of rationality but harm prevention. It's difficult if not impossible from the outside to distinguish between those relationships that are healthy and those that constitute sexual abuse, teens are not good judges of that, and the adults are self-interested. Hence the legal line-drawing.

 

Personally I think preventing lifelong psychological trauma to kids at the hands of adults is a compelling reason even if the ratio isn't 100%. You are also forgetting that the age of consent varies, not every adult/minor relationship is criminalized (relationships with an age gap of less than x number of years are often exempted from such laws) unless the adult is in a position of trust and authority (like a teacher) or the child is under the age of 13, and most such relationships never result in charges anyway.

 

I would be more inclined to agree with your characterization of the discussion as lacking in rationality if you acknowledged and discussed the extensive psychological research on this subject. To not acknowledge (or seemingly care) about the potential for harm is also irrational.

 

Of course I recognize the scientific research that probes beyond question the damage that even consensual sexual play cause in children. All of it rigorously made in the context of a culture in which sex is sinful, dirty, often illegal, forbidden and unspeakable of. The very point referred by [uSER=12528]@FTM_Twink[/uSER] above. I said in my post "I think we are not ready", I correct myself. I should have said that I am not ready. So this is my last post in this thread.

[AndreFuture]

I appreciate hearing your perspective as well, @latbear4blk , but I understand if you don't feel comfortable participating in this thread.

[AndreFuture]

I also hope it's not lost on people that the exact same arguments making juvenile sex illegal (whether with peers or adults—kids aren't legally allowed to have sex.*) were used for making homosexuality illegal throughout Anglo-aligned nations. Men having sex with other men were perverts, predatory, were abused/molested, snuck around. And many who succumbed to their same sex desires often felt shame, guilt, and were mentally traumatized afterwards. Plenty of medical research showed the numerous negative consequences of homosexuality—it was classified a mental disease after all. Some willingly tried conversion therapies to fix their perversion, other became abusers of drugs and alcohol, a few committed suicide. All because they engaged in homosexuality instead of moral sex with women. Sure, some of those men didn't feel any shame or guilt, but is it really worth the risk of making homosexuality legal just for the few for whom it was okay?

 

 

This is all somewhat tounge in cheek, but really, the underlying motivations are the same: demonize a natural behavior, push it to the outskirts of decent society, make it illegal, prevent honest discussion, so that anyone who engages in the behavior has to deal with the internalized shame and stigma in addition to the legal ramifications. There's no outlet in which to discuss the experience, to share good and bad experiences and learn from them. With such a set up, it would be shocking if there wasn't abuse going on. What I've described is the perfect environment for unchecked abuse.

[+ WmClarke]

It's one thing for a mid-20 year old and a 17 year old than a 17 and a 50 year old. But even then the imbalance of power It would be too easy for the older guy to take advantage. Why do I get the feeling that this kind of sex might lead to a higher percentage of barebacking?

 

Gman

WTF is your point? That makes no sense.

[+ sync]

To not acknowledge (or seemingly care) about the potential for harm is also irrational.

 

Well stated.

 

I'm all for individual freedoms, but my belief is that sexual relations between adults and children, regardless of which initiates them, should not be encouraged or tolerated. The potential consequences are just way too stacked against the children.

 

Children with zero life experience have no concept of the plethora of social diseases or their consequences. If they contracted any or several of these diseases, it is unlikely they would know the early symptoms, and, if they did recognize the symptoms, would they seek medical attention or refrain from it fearing physicians' responsibility to contact authorities, parents or guardians? Emotionally, how well are most children equipped to cope with believing they have found their life-long true love only to be inexplicably abandoned or humiliated by an out-right rejection when the adult decides it's over for them? Conversely, when it's the children who wish to terminate relationships with adults, how well prepared would they be for addressing adult stalkers?

 

I have spoken!

[+ quoththeraven]

I think a significant amount of the danger in sexual relations between adults and children comes from the illegality. Kind of like the dangers of prostitution come from the fact that it's illegal and pushed underground. If kids could have open and honest conversations about their sexuality, there would be less opportunity for them to be preyed upon.

 

Yet, there's also huge amounts of power imbalances between adult men and women. But those relationships aren't illegal (though, IMHO they probably should be!) I've seen and know about way too many toxic hetero relationships throughour human history that women were coerced into because they're "supposed to" and (any) hetero marriage is The Moral™ relationship

 

In both children-adults and men-women relationships there's power differentials, AND an external coercive pressure (to either abstain (child-adult) or succumb (man-woman)). The underlying problem with both cases is society dictating what is an appropriate sexual relationship for people, but not actually accounting for the wants and needs of individuals.

I agree that society has a warped view of sexuality and that openness and acceptance that we are sexual beings who would benefit from learning how to express ourselves sexually in a way that is fulfilling to us and respectful of others should be the norm. I am not as convinced that it is that big a factor in the trauma children experience as a result of intimate sexual activity with adults that they're not ready for, especially when it is initiated by the older party.

 

I am all for clearing away the obstructions to healthy sexuality so it's easier to tell what is actually harmful. I would, however, suggest that sexual engagement by adults with children under the age of 13 (i.e., prepubescent children) is never appropriate and non-traumatizing.

[MikeyGMin]

's one thing for a mid-20 year old and a 17 year old than a 17 and a 50 year old. But even then the imbalance of power It would be too easy for the older guy to take advantage

Of course there is a huge difference between a 10-year gap and a 30-year gap. These men had no power over me. Remember, I was the initiator. The only real imbalance was that they had their own apartments and were able to buy alcohol. Hardly something that would make me bend to their will.

 

Why do I get the feeling that this kind of sex might lead to a higher percentage of barebacking?

I have no idea why you get that feeling because I can't see any correlation at all. In my case, it was pre AIDS, but if I were the same 16 year old predatory kid today, I would have the information and use protection. I was a teenage predator -- not an idiot.

 

And say if you are exactly right, @MikeyGMin, that it caused no psychological harm to you,

I am exactly right. I know myself quite well and know that there are no battle scars. In fact, I was pretty damn confident and well-adjusted for a teenager in the late seventies when gay people were just beginning to make progress. I knew what I wanted and I went for it.

 

I have not repeated a pattern where I now prefer teenagers. I still prefer the same age range that I have always preferred except now it has expanded into the thirties.

 

Shouldn't it remain illegal for them rather than the few for whom it is ok?

Of course it has to remain illegal and I'm not saying that it shouldn't be. There are certainly 16 and 17 year old kids out there who are naive and could be taken advantage of. I'm just acknowledging that it isn't black and white.

[mmk123]

you would think that someone who was "in the industry" would know better out of all people (not that everyone should not know better when it comes to something like this). Absolutely everything is traceable these days.

 

Well I am sure that both of them will be some popular abused bitches depending whatever cellblock they end up in.

[+ Gar1eth]

WTF is your point? That makes no sense.

 

Made sense to me. Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems to me that the 'adults' who go in for this are probably attracted to riskier types sex. Is it beyond belief to think they might be more into barebacking?

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

I also hope it's not lost on people that the exact same arguments making juvenile sex illegal (whether with peers or adults—kids aren't legally allowed to have sex.*) were used for making homosexuality illegal throughout Anglo-aligned nations. Men having sex with other men were perverts, predatory, were abused/molested, snuck around. And many who succumbed to their same sex desires often felt shame, guilt, and were mentally traumatized afterwards. Plenty of medical research showed the numerous negative consequences of homosexuality—it was classified a mental disease after all. Some willingly tried conversion therapies to fix their perversion, other became abusers of drugs and alcohol, a few committed suicide. All because they engaged in homosexuality instead of moral sex with women. Sure, some of those men didn't feel any shame or guilt, but is it really worth the risk of making homosexuality legal just for the few for whom it was okay?

 

 

This is all somewhat tounge in cheek, but really, the underlying motivations are the same: demonize a natural behavior, push it to the outskirts of decent society, make it illegal, prevent honest discussion, so that anyone who engages in the behavior has to deal with the internalized shame and stigma in addition to the legal ramifications. There's no outlet in which to discuss the experience, to share good and bad experiences and learn from them. With such a set up, it would be shocking if there wasn't abuse going on. What I've described is the perfect environment for unchecked abuse.

 

And again-I'll have to vehemently disagree. In some cases society's standards do need to be changed. However allowing adults to have sex with children below the age of consent is not one of them.

 

Gman

[buckguy]

You can debate where to draw the lines all you want but in this case, it's pointless. Dr. Billy used university wifi to download/trade porn, which is just stupid. Dr. Billy is training in a specialty where boundaries are esp. important and in a profession where contact with minors is illegal and anything that seems related to that will get him in trouble. He'll probably lose his license if convicted (residents usually get a license when they begin residency). As for Blu/Ben, people who knew him in NYC thought he was a quite a mess for awhile, perhaps he still is. I wonder what he was doing besides enjoying the life of a reasonably well paid professional's other half.

[MiamiLooker]

Well I am sure that both of them will be some popular abused bitches depending whatever cellblock they end up in.

Should this abuse be accepted as just part of their punishment?

[+ quoththeraven]

Should this abuse be accepted as just part of their punishment?

I'd also like to know the answer.

[caliguy]

I also hope it's not lost on people that the exact same arguments making juvenile sex illegal (whether with peers or adults—kids aren't legally allowed to have sex.*)

You're not allowed to legally have sex with animals either. I'm sure bestiality enthusiasts consider it natural too. It just comes down to consent and obviously they're not able to give it.

 

Equating this to gay rights is a Nambla talking point.

[+ Gar1eth]

You're not allowed to legally have sex with animals either. I'm sure bestiality enthusiasts consider it natural too. It just comes down to consent and obviously they're not able to give it.

 

 

Strangely enough, while it should be, bestiality isn't illegal in all 50 states.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.indy100.com/article/us-states-bestiality-still-legal-7451731%3Famp

 

 

Gman

[AndreFuture]

You're not allowed to legally have sex with animals either. I'm sure bestiality enthusiasts consider it natural too. It just comes down to consent and obviously they're not able to give it.

 

Equating this to gay rights is a Nambla talking point.

And grown, mentally disabled adults aren't allowed to have sex either because of how we legally define the concept of consent. Because it's easier to strip someone's sexuality away than deal with our personal discomfort with other people's sexuality.

 

I'm not affiliated with NAMBLA, but a few of you #onhere seem to be quite familiar with them.

 

Edit: Upon rereading your comment, I'm left wondering the logic behind it. What exactly are you suggesting with your beastiality reference? All I've said is that human beings are sexual creatures and that it's wrong to suppress that for 18 years because sexual dysfunction is the clear result.

 

So I must ask: why is your mind rushing to the idea of having sex with animals in that context? Do you mean to say that human beings are not in fact sexual creatures (that sexuality is not natural), and therefore if we don't suppress sexuality for the first 18 years of a person's lif, it's akin to having sex with animals?

[mike carey]

I'm not affiliated with NAMBLA, but a few of you #onhere seem to be quite familiar with them.

I heard about it on South Park.

[Phil_musc]

I'm late to this thread but having read it all plus the str8upgayporn item, I'm surprised at the range of opinions here (silly me, I know). But ftm_twink's position (if I understand it correctly) seems to be that we don't have a rational coherent position on sexuality as a part of human existence. (That's probably way too simplified - it's more nuanced than that). I think that is correct. Just last evening I was rummaging around online and read up on the legal business that shut down Mike Dozer's life. In that situation, an underage boy mis-represented himself (actually lied about his age on an online gay dating site) and met up with Dozer. Something like two years later, said boy tells parents who go legal-ballistic. Dozer is arrested and ultimately pleads guilty and is now serving a 17.5 year sentence -or something like that - it might be 25. True the waters are muddied here in that Dozer may not have divulged his HIV status to the boy. But the sentence came back because of the underage aspect, not the failure to disclose point.

 

My point is not that these cases are analogous, but it does seem to reinforce the idea that we have many issues about sex and morality which is only further complicated by balance of power considerations. In Dozer's case, it was pointed out that murderers got less jail time than he did. In Blu's case, what is the age of the children involved? There is a big difference between 9 and 14, IMHO.

[caliguy]

an underage boy mis-represented himself (actually lied about his age on an online gay dating site) and met up with Dozer. .

I think he might have had a defense if it was just that. However, Detectives pulled the text messages and found Dozer not only acknowledging the kid being underage but found it hot. In the interrogation he also indicated that he knew the kid was underage. I don't think he understood the gravity of his situation. Don't blab to the police no matter how friendly they seem. I'm sure being high on meth didn't help matters.

 

He was sentenced to 17.5 years. However, because he failed to disclose the hiv he got another 8 years tacked onto that. 25.5 years total.

[MiamiLooker]

Morality is swayed by public opinion at the time.

[+ Gar1eth]

 

My point is not that these cases are analogous, but it does seem to reinforce the idea that we have many issues about sex and morality which is only further complicated by balance of power considerations. In Dozer's case, it was pointed out that murderers got less jail time than he did. In Blu's case, what is the age of the children involved? There is a big difference between 9 and 14, IMHO.

 

You really think 14 is a proper age where a person should be able to consent to sex? 14 is still much much too young. Even if someone that age wanted to, the majority wouldn't know enough about staying safe-or even if they read about staying safe-would they put it into practice. We don't even let 14 year olds drive because we don't think in general they have the judgment or maturity required. But you think it's ok for them to have sex with much older people? If you said 17 in a state like California where I believe the legal age of consent is 18 that's one thing.

 

As for saying that as a society we often don't deal with sexual issues well, I'll agree. But [uSER=12528]@FTM_Twink[/uSER]'s statements, to me at least, seem to go much further-and seem to me to be proposing that older adult-child way below the age of consent coupling should be allowed.

 

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

I think he might have had a defense if it was just that. However, Detectives pulled the text messages and found Dozer not only acknowledging the kid being underage but found it hot. In the interrogation he also indicated that he knew the kid was underage. I don't think he understood the gravity of his situation. Don't blab to the police no matter how friendly they seem. I'm sure being high on meth didn't help matters.

 

It might not have been much of a defense-my understanding-which may be wrong as I'm not a lawyer-is that in many jurisdictions (? possibly all) ignorance about the person being underage is not a defense.

 

Gman

[Phil_musc]

When I was 14 I was ready - if opportunity had reared its lovely head, I would have been overjoyed. I would mention, though, that HIV was not an issue back then. When I was 14 I didn't care about driving.

[MikeyGMin]

When I was 14 I was ready - if opportunity had reared its lovely head, I would have been overjoyed. I would mention, though, that HIV was not an issue back then. When I was 14 I didn't care about driving.

I was ready at 14 also. It didn't rear its head until 15 but it was oh-so-lovely.

[caliguy]

It might not have been much of a defense-my understanding-which may be wrong as I'm not a lawyer-is that in many jurisdictions (? possibly all) ignorance about the person being underage is not a defense.

 

Gman

You're right. No way out of it. However, Dozer probably could've saved himself allot prison time. 25 years is allot of time.