Explain why isn't her topless at 16 considered Child Porn…But?
-
lazarillo — 11 years ago(July 27, 2014 11:03 AM)
Toplessness and nudity are not porn and 16 (or 17) is not a child.
Maybe most men should just ADMIT that they are attracted to 16 and 17-year-old girls. They were as teenagers and they will be as old men. That doesn't make you "pedophile" because pedophiles are attracted to CHILDREN, not fully developed older teens. It also doesn't make you a sex offender unless, as an adult, you show up at their house when their parents are away with beer and condoms. I don't mind seeing pretty women naked, but that doesn't mean I go peek in windows. Same thing with finding underage girls somewhat attractive.
What's really stupid is they never have girls this young do nude scenes in American movies anymore anyway ("American Beauty" was last one I remember). So are you trying to "protect" women who are least 30 at this point? How many adult men saw an underage girl naked (or had sex with her) when they themselves were teenagers 15, 20, or 30 years ago? Are you going give us all a lobotomy to remove these images of "child porn"?
The irony is Thora Birch is a very underrated actress and cute as hell TODAY. Why all the focus on an underage nude scene she did 15 years ago? Will the real perverts please stand up? -
ngdvd — 10 years ago(June 24, 2015 06:49 PM)
Yeah, funny how no one ever complains when males go topless. Is
Stand by Me
a porn film?
If it's okay for young males to be topless in films then it's okay for young females to be topless in film. To believe otherwise is just sexism, simple as that. -