The Moral Maze - Age of Consent

[rjw63]

12 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Reminds me of Stephen Sackur interviewing Mia Khalifa on Hardtalk (lol!)

At one point she turns fire on him asking if he’s ever watched porn… the look on his face

An Mia. She was very sexy, and obviously not thick as two short planks which makes her hotter

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by rjw63
keenanism

[PaulC]

12 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Reminds me of Stephen Sackur interviewing Mia Khalifa on Hardtalk (lol!)

At one point she turns fire on him asking if he’s ever watched porn… the look on his face

The main thing I took from that interview was the position these porn people put her in by making her do videos that caused her to get death threats and how little money she earned.

[foreveryoung]

9 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

That wasn't a no. 

Your post kinda reads like looking at it is fine, but paying for it isn't?

Okay I won't look anymore, pass me your 18 year old daughters (if you had one), number and I'll ask her to send me some nudies for £500 so I can polish my rocket. Or would you rather I just browse the inter web, for randoms. Admitted they are possibly both immoral, but I would say one is worse then the other.

[Mark Albrighton]

15 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Okay I won't look anymore, pass me your 18 year old daughters (if you had one), number and I'll ask her to send me some nudies for £500 so I can polish my rocket. Or would you rather I just browse the inter web, for randoms. Admitted they are possibly both immoral, but I would say one is worse then the other.

But unless I’ve missed something, Hew Edwards didn’t know the parents of the person he was contacting before beginning the liaison.

The young man was a “random”. 

So it would be nothing like asking for a fellow VT member’s (legally aged) son or daughter to send nude pictures to you.

[foreveryoung]

3 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

But unless I’ve missed something, Hew Edwards didn’t know the parents of the person he was contacting before beginning the liaison.

The young man was a “random”. 

So it would be nothing like asking for a fellow VT member’s (legally aged) son or daughter to send nude pictures to you.

Then (if I was 60 odd), I'll ask the flirty girl down the pub, who could be a daughter of someone on here? 

I'm just not sure with all the righteous bull*** I hear on certain topics, the same people think there's nothing to see here, when a 60 year old man pays for nudie photos of a just legal young man, because, well, we look at porn on the internet don't we!

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Then (if I was 60 odd), I'll ask the flirty girl down the pub, who could be a daughter of someone on here? 

I'm just not sure with all the righteous bull*** I hear on certain topics, the same people think there's nothing to see here, when a 60 year old man pays for nudie photos of a just legal young man, because, well, we look at porn on the internet don't we!

Well, importantly, we have no idea how these people met - there's every chance it was online in an environment that meant that consent to this kind of behaviour was there, especially if it was OnlyFans or something like that, which is slightly different to going up to a random in a pub and asking to buy nudes.

Putting that aside, how do you think people would react? Because I'd wager that the general feeling would be a negative one of "come on man, sort yourself out, it's legal but a bit gross", but some way short of "you deserve to have your life ruined, and to be publicly shamed in front of everyone you know". So basically, a pretty similar response to Huw Edwards has got on here.

[Mark Albrighton]

8 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Then (if I was 60 odd), I'll ask the flirty girl down the pub, who could be a daughter of someone on here? 

I'm just not sure with all the righteous bull*** I hear on certain topics, the same people think there's nothing to see here, when a 60 year old man pays for nudie photos of a just legal young man, because, well, we look at porn on the internet don't we!

In that scenario, then yes. Nothing is stopping you from doing that or that scenario happening.

If you went up to a young woman and asked her for nude pictures, pictures you’d be willing to pay for, I’m not sure whether that would possibly be some sort of harassment. I have no idea.

I have read on several occasions that people on here find the Edwards situation seedy.

But it’s not illegal. As the details currently suggest.

How many years after the age of 18 would a person have to be before you deem it acceptable for a 60 year old man to offer to pay for nude pictures? You’re not happy with 18, ok. Is 25 old enough?

It comes across like you you’re happy for pornography to exist, but either people shouldn’t pay or be paid for it, or that the people performing the pornography should at least have the decency of not being related to someone.

If it’s an issue for you, I would suggest hentai. 

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

It comes across like you you’re happy for pornography to exist, but either people shouldn’t pay or be paid for it, or that the people performing the pornography should at least have the decency of not being related to someone.

If it’s an issue for you, I would suggest hentai. 

Animals would also meet the criteria. 

[KentVillan]

34 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Then (if I was 60 odd), I'll ask the flirty girl down the pub, who could be a daughter of someone on here? 

I'm just not sure with all the righteous bull*** I hear on certain topics, the same people think there's nothing to see here, when a 60 year old man pays for nudie photos of a just legal young man, because, well, we look at porn on the internet don't we!

You’re not making much sense.

The story seems to be that Huw and the unnamed “victim” (who says he isn’t a victim) met online in some kind of sexual / pornographic / romantic context.

It’s pretty different from taking a shine to someone’s daughter or a flirty barmaid.

The point is we all know you’ve had a wank to a porn video featuring someone fairly close to that age, and probably stumped up a few quid for the privilege at some point.

It’s not great behaviour on his part, but the debate was over whether he deserved to have his career wrecked and the story splashed all over the news for a whole week.

And bla bla bla righteous, people disagree with me and I can’t hack it, bla bla bollocks,  doesn’t massively strengthen your argument.

[foreveryoung]

16 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

In that scenario, then yes. Nothing is stopping you from doing that or that scenario happening.

If you went up to a young woman and asked her for nude pictures, pictures you’d be willing to pay for, I’m not sure whether that would possibly be some sort of harassment. I have no idea.

I have read on several occasions that people on here find the Edwards situation seedy.

But it’s not illegal. As the details currently suggest.

How many years after the age of 18 would a person have to be before you deem it acceptable for a 60 year old man to offer to pay for nude pictures? You’re not happy with 18, ok. Is 25 old enough?

It comes across like you you’re happy for pornography to exist, but either people shouldn’t pay or be paid for it, or that the people performing the pornography should at least have the decency of not being related to someone.

If it’s an issue for you, I would suggest hentai. 

I don't think there's many people who agree pornography should exist. But my opinion is it's far different browsing the internet, it's going to another level asking a just legal boy/girl for nudie pictures at 60+ years of age, £35k is also as good as blackmail, you need to ask yourself why he paid that much, if true.

I just want to add, I agree it should have been a private matter, not involving the media

[foreveryoung]

6 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

You’re not making much sense.

The story seems to be that Huw and the unnamed “victim” (who says he isn’t a victim) met online in some kind of sexual / pornographic / romantic context.

It’s pretty different from taking a shine to someone’s daughter or a flirty barmaid.

The point is we all know you’ve had a wank to a porn video featuring someone fairly close to that age, and probably stumped up a few quid for the privilege at some point.

It’s not great behaviour on his part, but the debate was over whether he deserved to have his career wrecked and the story splashed all over the news for a whole week.

And bla bla bla righteous, people disagree with me and I can’t hack it, bla bla bollocks,  doesn’t massively strengthen your argument.

I don't need my opinion strengthened, cause it's just my opinion, not an argument, which I realise is always a problem on here having differing opinions to others.

Back on topic, You will always risk your career doing 'naughty things', if you are in the public eye, he only has himself to blame for the media grabbing the story, trust no one!!

[KentVillan]

Just now, foreveryoung said:

I don't need my opinion strengthened, cause it's just my opinion, not an argument, which I realise is always a problem on here having differing opinions to others.

Back on topic, You will always risk your career doing 'naughty things', if you are in the public eye, he only has himself to blame for the media grabbing the story, trust no one!!

Yes he definitely took stupid risks, besides letting himself down with his wife etc.

But given history of severe mental health issues, I wonder if he was having some kind of manic episode.

It’s all bizarre, but he definitely didn’t deserve to be public enemy number 1 for the last 5 days. At worst, he’s a sad old closeted homosexual who has some seedy tendencies. He may not even be that, we don’t really know the full story, and probably shouldn’t.

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I don't think there's many people who agree pornography should exist. But my opinion is it's far different browsing the internet, it's going to another level asking a just legal boy/girl for nudie pictures at 60+ years of age, £35k is also as good as blackmail, you need to ask yourself why he paid that much, if true.

I just want to add, I agree it should have been a private matter, not involving the media

I don’t think anyone is denying it’s, at least, quite seedy behaviour. 
 

But the point is, the implication from the Sun’s story was quite clearly that the activity was with a child and that it was criminal. The word child was explicitly used, and illegality was implied. 

The Sun also refused to publish a denial by the young person in question which basically said everything they’d reported was bullshit. 
 

I think there’s two issues that you’re getting confused. I think you’re confusing people’s view of the STORY with people’s view of Edwards’ behaviour. 
 

It’s questionable behaviour, no doubt. But it is a far cry from what the Sun implied it was and I’d expect them to pay the price, financially, for that

Edited July 13, 2023 by Stevo985

[Mark Albrighton]

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I don't think there's many people who agree pornography should exist. But my opinion is it's far different browsing the internet, it's going to another level asking a just legal boy/girl for nudie pictures at 60+ years of age, £35k is also as good as blackmail, you need to ask yourself why he paid that much, if true.

I just want to add, I agree it should have been a private matter, not involving the media

Just another point on your analogy.

IF they met on Onlyfans (I don’t know if they did) then there perhaps is already the dynamic of this young man is prepared to sell pictures of himself. That potentially is he reason why the young man is there in the first place.

The young woman in the pub or the club, do you think she’s gone there in order to sell pictures of herself? Or do you think she has gone there in order to have a drink and/or dance?

I suspect it’s the latter. In which case, the environments of an Onlyfans and the pub/club are not really comparable. 

The young man on Onlyfans is there for business purposes and might be in the market for such an act. The young woman in the pub is looking for a drink.

[foreveryoung]

6 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Just another point on your analogy.

IF they met on Onlyfans (I don’t know if they did) then there perhaps is already the dynamic of this young man is prepared to sell pictures of himself. That potentially is he reason why the young man is there in the first place.

The young woman in the pub or the club, do you think she’s gone there in order to sell pictures of herself? Or do you think she has gone there in order to have a drink and/or dance?

I suspect it’s the latter. In which case, the environments of an Onlyfans and the pub/club are not really comparable. 

The young man on Onlyfans is there for business purposes and might be in the market for such an act. The young woman in the pub is looking for a drink.

This is only an assumption, I'm sure there's more to come out, although I do think most of the media have now bottled it.

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

I do think most of the media have realised there isn't an entire week of headlines in this story

Fixed that for you

[foreveryoung]

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I don’t think anyone is denying it’s, at least, quite seedy behaviour. 
 

But the point is, the implication from the Sun’s story was quite clearly that the activity was with a child and that it was criminal. The word child was explicitly used, and illegality was implied. 

The Sun also refused to publish a denial by the young person in question which basically said everything they’d reported was bullshit. 
 

I think there’s two issues that you’re getting confused. I think you’re confusing people’s view of the STORY with people’s view of Edwards’ behaviour. 
 

It’s questionable behaviour, no doubt. But it is a far cry from what the Sun implied it was and I’d expect them to pay the price, financially, for that

My biggest issue was some saying his actions were just like us polishing our rockets browsing the internet, which it isn't, to me it's another level, although I agree we do not know the facts or what really happened so it's all conjecture at the moment.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

My biggest issue was some saying his actions were just like us polishing our rockets browsing the internet, which it isn't, to me it's another level, although I agree we do not know the facts or what really happened so it's all conjecture at the moment.

We don’t really know what it is. 
 

If he’s met somebody on OnlyFans then the precedent is there that this person is selling explicit photos of themselves on the internet. So on the face of it, if he’s just continued paying that person for photos then that is a real non-story. It’s seedy behaviour because of the age gap and it’s wrong because he’s married, but morally there’s not really a story there. 
 

If there’s more to it than that, then it might be a different story. If he met them somewhere else, if he groomed them, I’d he was abusive, if there was extortion involved etc. 

But as it stands there is absolutely no evidence for that. Literally none. 

[Mark Albrighton]

7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

This is only an assumption, I'm sure there's more to come out, although I do think most of the media have now bottled it.

Another point, as unpleasant as it may well be for a woman (or man) to be asked whether she would be interested in selling nude pictures of herself to someone online, I can imagine it would feel far more unpleasant and threatening if a bloke went up to her in a club and said the same thing.

We don’t know how Edwards first interacted with him. For all we know, he didn’t start the conversation with offering to pay for nudes. There might have been a significant amount of time between the first contact and the first suggestion of this transaction. Plenty of flirting and suggestive messages between the pair.

We don’t know.

But there’s currently nothing to suggest what Edwards has done is the same as going up to a woman in person at a pub and offering her money for a lewd picture.

[chrisp65]

Have we established yet the cut off age that’s an acceptable age for paying for porn rather than using the free stuff?

This feels like one of those hilarious discussions where someone in their 20’s suddenly realises but can’t accept that old people still shag.