wow...wtf...so young and yet just thrown away like some trash...i hope they really fuck the guy responsible up..
this is sick...
this is sick...
Zoey Zane.....missing?
- Thread starter devlinvelez
- Start date
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Re: Zoe Zane.....missing?
But yet you want to do the exact same thing with all of the *** laws. I agree that this is a ridicules reason to raise the age of consent, I STRONGLY disagree with allowing it to be any lower. Just because a person can figure out sex feels good, and can make you money, does not mean that person is mature enough to know what a contract says, or how to handle the fame, and shame that might come with such a serious decision.
But yet you want to do the exact same thing with all of the *** laws. I agree that this is a ridicules reason to raise the age of consent, I STRONGLY disagree with allowing it to be any lower. Just because a person can figure out sex feels good, and can make you money, does not mean that person is mature enough to know what a contract says, or how to handle the fame, and shame that might come with such a serious decision.
The idea of raising the minimum age to be in porn is one that I have mixed feelings about, btw - please note that I said "perhaps" in my post, and was just fielding the question; and in case you're wondering I am not part of, nor was I even aware of any "special interest" group(s) working to change laws in response to this - actually, I've avoided the vast bulk of coverage of this tragedy.
The reason I brought up the idea is that DerSchadel said this:
"An 18 year old is still just a ***. How the fuck can a person **** a ***?"
So, obviously everyone here agrees that **** shouldn't be making porn, and apparently some people feel that 18-year-olds are still ****. In some sense, I also agree with that sentiment, that one isn't truly an adult at that age. So, maybe it's worth considering RAISING that minimum age requirement. Again, I don't have a firm opinion on this, but am interested in the idea. One might argue that fucking on film at 18 could have at least as much of a negative impact on a person's life as getting *****...
Fox, you said "If you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to get paid to have sex and to want to be filmed having sex."
Come on now, clearly there are limits to that line of thinking among reasonable, thoughtful people, no?? Are you talking about a person being PHYSICALLY "old enough"???
But as for Zoey (her real name was Emily Sander), of course there's not NECESSARILY a connection between what she was doing via the internet and how she met her end, but there might possibly be. (Perhaps the sicko that ****** her recognized her from the web, assumed she'd be up for a "wild night" and when she didn't go along with his ideas he got violent - possible, no?)
But it is also true that any woman who engages in similar activities might run that risk in one way or another, regardless of age.
I'm just mulling over some ideas here, so I don't think anyone needs to get huffy or pissed at me about it...
The reason I brought up the idea is that DerSchadel said this:
"An 18 year old is still just a ***. How the fuck can a person **** a ***?"
So, obviously everyone here agrees that **** shouldn't be making porn, and apparently some people feel that 18-year-olds are still ****. In some sense, I also agree with that sentiment, that one isn't truly an adult at that age. So, maybe it's worth considering RAISING that minimum age requirement. Again, I don't have a firm opinion on this, but am interested in the idea. One might argue that fucking on film at 18 could have at least as much of a negative impact on a person's life as getting *****...
Fox, you said "If you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to get paid to have sex and to want to be filmed having sex."
Come on now, clearly there are limits to that line of thinking among reasonable, thoughtful people, no?? Are you talking about a person being PHYSICALLY "old enough"???
But as for Zoey (her real name was Emily Sander), of course there's not NECESSARILY a connection between what she was doing via the internet and how she met her end, but there might possibly be. (Perhaps the sicko that ****** her recognized her from the web, assumed she'd be up for a "wild night" and when she didn't go along with his ideas he got violent - possible, no?)
But it is also true that any woman who engages in similar activities might run that risk in one way or another, regardless of age.
I'm just mulling over some ideas here, so I don't think anyone needs to get huffy or pissed at me about it...
So, if I'm reading you correctly here Fox, you'd be in favor of 16-year-olds being allowed to be in porn?
i dont think that was his point
Maybe it wasn't. It's not clear to me. I'm honestly wondering.
First he said:
"Whatever the age of consent is, should also be the age for gay sex, anal sex, slutty sex, nasty sex, whore sex, porn sex, babymaking sex, all of it."
Then he said:
"To me making porn ******* till 21 while sex is legal at 16 is as discriminatory against girls who wanna fuck for a living as it is when they say gay sex is ******* until 18 but straight sex is okay at 16."
I read that as him saying that the age of consent and the age for any and all sex - including sex on film (i.e. doing porn) - should be the same, and seeing that many states have an age of consent of 16, well, the rest is clear enough, right?
But maybe I'm interpreting what he said too loosely - thus, my question.
First he said:
"Whatever the age of consent is, should also be the age for gay sex, anal sex, slutty sex, nasty sex, whore sex, porn sex, babymaking sex, all of it."
Then he said:
"To me making porn ******* till 21 while sex is legal at 16 is as discriminatory against girls who wanna fuck for a living as it is when they say gay sex is ******* until 18 but straight sex is okay at 16."
I read that as him saying that the age of consent and the age for any and all sex - including sex on film (i.e. doing porn) - should be the same, and seeing that many states have an age of consent of 16, well, the rest is clear enough, right?
But maybe I'm interpreting what he said too loosely - thus, my question.
Fox, why so testy? The funny thing is that I probably agree with you much more often than I don't - on this thread, and others. Having read a few more news stories about Sander ("Zane"), it does appear that there was probably no connection between her porn "star" status (I guess anyone w/ a website containing nudity is now a porn "star") and her death.
I agree also with what you said about our legal discrimination of gays. That's quite true.
I agree with more than a few things that you've written in this thread, but I didn't think it would be very interesting if I just listed what you wrote and typed in "I agree!" everywhere.
But I wanted to discuss those things where we seem to disagree, and see where you're coming from. Try to understand your viewpoint, ya know? But now you're comparing me to "the media" and all. Come on - not fair (or accurate; I quote you when I want to address a specific point you've made, and why would I even bother taking something out of context, when the whole context is printed directly above for all to read anyway?).
But keep in mind what triggered my initial comment. DerSchadel - who I would like to hear from again on this - said that she ("Zane") was just a ***, and asked how anybody could **** a ***. It just seemed obvious to me that here at this respectable forum, probably 99.9% of members are wholly against the idea of **** being in porn, but here we are decrying the ****** of this "***" who was, at least in some mild sense, involved in it. If she was a *** when she was ******** was she also a *** when she was doing her web stuff?
You wrote that "If the masses want the porn age to be higher than the age of consent then fine" but it seems quite clear that such a result would NOT be "fine" with you at all, as you think that the discrepancy would be "discriminatory":
"To me making porn ******* till 21 while sex is legal at 16 is [as] discriminatory against girls who wanna fuck for a living..."
How many 16-year-olds do you think are mature enough to make the decision that they want to fuck for a living? You said that you "have no interest in seeing 16 year olds do porn any more than [you] have in seeing 18 year olds do it" so I'm really at a loss as to where you're coming from on this one, and why. What foundational idea or principle are you working from?
You said "I'm interested in liberal laws that let people be people and don't criminalize things for being immoral." I doubt you really mean that. All sorts of crimes are on the books for, at least in part, moral reasons. One needn't be some Bible-thumping Christian set on establishing theocracy to understand that morality is involved in criminal laws. We protect **** - you can't hand **** a vial of crack and say "Have fun!" - because we think it's right to protect them and wrong to hurt them. It is wrong to set fire to a national forest, and surely that's at the core of why it's also *******. I'm an agnostic (who leans to the atheist side) and I'm comfortable with that idea. I'm also aware that there are gray areas, such as abortion and porn laws and such, and this is where necessarily arbitrary lines have to be drawn. Right?
It's interesting because I look at the naked 18-year-olds - I'm sure - from time to time. I suspect you do, too, Fox. (It's legal, that much we know) I'm sure plenty of pics and vids of them get posted right here in this forum. Some of them naturally look older and some are made up to look older. And then some older girls/women are made to look "barely legal."
As for the age of consent being the age for any and all types of sex, including "whore sex," well, why? ***** labor laws generally don't allow those under 16 to work for money.
Lastly, you said "The less stuff is *******, the better for everyone."
That's an interesting one. Currently, I think the U.S. is, in the vast majority of things, moving in the wrong direction, making more and more things *******, defining more and more activities as criminal, and locking up more and more of its own citizens. That's a huge problem. It's part of our society being obsessed with punishment and punitive measures. But I think your ************ - making fewer things ******* - is probably too simplistic. For every 10 things that I could think of that are ******* now but probably shouldn't be, I could ALSO think of 5 things that are LEGAL now that shouldn't be. Corporations ******* someone to move from their home so that it can be bulldozed and replaced by some office or industrial complex is one that comes to my mind right away... I'm also not cool with the government listening to my phone calls or videotaping me as I walk down a public street (even though it probably wouldn't bother me so much if a private individual did it, as long as it didn't become a form of harassment). You get the idea.
YOUR THOUGHTS?
I agree also with what you said about our legal discrimination of gays. That's quite true.
I agree with more than a few things that you've written in this thread, but I didn't think it would be very interesting if I just listed what you wrote and typed in "I agree!" everywhere.
But I wanted to discuss those things where we seem to disagree, and see where you're coming from. Try to understand your viewpoint, ya know? But now you're comparing me to "the media" and all. Come on - not fair (or accurate; I quote you when I want to address a specific point you've made, and why would I even bother taking something out of context, when the whole context is printed directly above for all to read anyway?).
But keep in mind what triggered my initial comment. DerSchadel - who I would like to hear from again on this - said that she ("Zane") was just a ***, and asked how anybody could **** a ***. It just seemed obvious to me that here at this respectable forum, probably 99.9% of members are wholly against the idea of **** being in porn, but here we are decrying the ****** of this "***" who was, at least in some mild sense, involved in it. If she was a *** when she was ******** was she also a *** when she was doing her web stuff?
You wrote that "If the masses want the porn age to be higher than the age of consent then fine" but it seems quite clear that such a result would NOT be "fine" with you at all, as you think that the discrepancy would be "discriminatory":
"To me making porn ******* till 21 while sex is legal at 16 is [as] discriminatory against girls who wanna fuck for a living..."
How many 16-year-olds do you think are mature enough to make the decision that they want to fuck for a living? You said that you "have no interest in seeing 16 year olds do porn any more than [you] have in seeing 18 year olds do it" so I'm really at a loss as to where you're coming from on this one, and why. What foundational idea or principle are you working from?
You said "I'm interested in liberal laws that let people be people and don't criminalize things for being immoral." I doubt you really mean that. All sorts of crimes are on the books for, at least in part, moral reasons. One needn't be some Bible-thumping Christian set on establishing theocracy to understand that morality is involved in criminal laws. We protect **** - you can't hand **** a vial of crack and say "Have fun!" - because we think it's right to protect them and wrong to hurt them. It is wrong to set fire to a national forest, and surely that's at the core of why it's also *******. I'm an agnostic (who leans to the atheist side) and I'm comfortable with that idea. I'm also aware that there are gray areas, such as abortion and porn laws and such, and this is where necessarily arbitrary lines have to be drawn. Right?
It's interesting because I look at the naked 18-year-olds - I'm sure - from time to time. I suspect you do, too, Fox. (It's legal, that much we know) I'm sure plenty of pics and vids of them get posted right here in this forum. Some of them naturally look older and some are made up to look older. And then some older girls/women are made to look "barely legal."
As for the age of consent being the age for any and all types of sex, including "whore sex," well, why? ***** labor laws generally don't allow those under 16 to work for money.
Lastly, you said "The less stuff is *******, the better for everyone."
That's an interesting one. Currently, I think the U.S. is, in the vast majority of things, moving in the wrong direction, making more and more things *******, defining more and more activities as criminal, and locking up more and more of its own citizens. That's a huge problem. It's part of our society being obsessed with punishment and punitive measures. But I think your ************ - making fewer things ******* - is probably too simplistic. For every 10 things that I could think of that are ******* now but probably shouldn't be, I could ALSO think of 5 things that are LEGAL now that shouldn't be. Corporations ******* someone to move from their home so that it can be bulldozed and replaced by some office or industrial complex is one that comes to my mind right away... I'm also not cool with the government listening to my phone calls or videotaping me as I walk down a public street (even though it probably wouldn't bother me so much if a private individual did it, as long as it didn't become a form of harassment). You get the idea.
YOUR THOUGHTS?
Well, obviously the conversation has moved along (personally, I don't much see the point in people in a porn forum, or most anywhere online, sending out well wishes or prayers to her ****** or whatever. Will they see them, and moreover, why should they care what we think?), and gone beyond just this particular young woman / girl / "***".
I didn't think your remark(s) were irrelevant or offhand (implying insignificance?), so that's your description of them, not mine. (Note, that's NOT an insult) Anyway, the reason I asked if "you'd be in favor of 16-year-olds being allowed to be in porn" is because................I wanted to know, it's that simple, and your previous comments weren't completely clear to me. Drawing that conclusion about your view on 16-year-olds in porn was like doing a transitive equation. It would SEEM that you are in favor of 16-year-olds in porn, or even, if the age of consent in a "community" was 14, then 14-year-olds too. I don't think it will create much controversy if that is your view. You and I both remain essentially anonymous; I can't be accused of seeking fame for stirring up controversial remarks by an anonymous poster on a porn forum.
You said "the age of consent should be 14 or 15 or 16 tops" but even this, I think, fails to acknowledge the striking differences in maturity between the AVERAGE 14-year-old and the AVERAGE 16-year-old, and ultimately, laws pertaining to these matters, to the extent that they can be necessary and beneficial to society overall, must be based on the AVERAGE person. Yes, there are the few, scattered **** who have positive sex experiences with some older person at the age of 10, but let's be realistic here, that's not average. You were physically beyond your years at 10, from the sound of it. (you've got some great barroom boasting material there if you choose to use it!)...
You say that in the Netherlands they've got porn w/ 16 and 17-year-olds. That's interesting. I'm still curious if there is ANY (arbitrary, of course, but that doesn't make it indefensible) age limit at which you'd draw the line at and say, ok "too damn young to be in porn". Spain has set their age of consent at 13:
Premium Link Upgrade
I've been to Spain, quite recently even, and didn't notice any porn w/ **** barely in their teens. In fact, it all looked like the standard 18-and-up variety. Maybe I didn't go into the right shops?
We've definitely got some disagreements here on this subject, but I suspect that on many/most issues, we're basically on the same side of things. Iraq War was a disaster from the get-go, Bush & Cheney are evil, capitalism is a big problem, etc. I hope you feel no need to hold a grudge here on the forum....
I didn't think your remark(s) were irrelevant or offhand (implying insignificance?), so that's your description of them, not mine. (Note, that's NOT an insult) Anyway, the reason I asked if "you'd be in favor of 16-year-olds being allowed to be in porn" is because................I wanted to know, it's that simple, and your previous comments weren't completely clear to me. Drawing that conclusion about your view on 16-year-olds in porn was like doing a transitive equation. It would SEEM that you are in favor of 16-year-olds in porn, or even, if the age of consent in a "community" was 14, then 14-year-olds too. I don't think it will create much controversy if that is your view. You and I both remain essentially anonymous; I can't be accused of seeking fame for stirring up controversial remarks by an anonymous poster on a porn forum.
You said "the age of consent should be 14 or 15 or 16 tops" but even this, I think, fails to acknowledge the striking differences in maturity between the AVERAGE 14-year-old and the AVERAGE 16-year-old, and ultimately, laws pertaining to these matters, to the extent that they can be necessary and beneficial to society overall, must be based on the AVERAGE person. Yes, there are the few, scattered **** who have positive sex experiences with some older person at the age of 10, but let's be realistic here, that's not average. You were physically beyond your years at 10, from the sound of it. (you've got some great barroom boasting material there if you choose to use it!)...
You say that in the Netherlands they've got porn w/ 16 and 17-year-olds. That's interesting. I'm still curious if there is ANY (arbitrary, of course, but that doesn't make it indefensible) age limit at which you'd draw the line at and say, ok "too damn young to be in porn". Spain has set their age of consent at 13:
Premium Link Upgrade
I've been to Spain, quite recently even, and didn't notice any porn w/ **** barely in their teens. In fact, it all looked like the standard 18-and-up variety. Maybe I didn't go into the right shops?
We've definitely got some disagreements here on this subject, but I suspect that on many/most issues, we're basically on the same side of things. Iraq War was a disaster from the get-go, Bush & Cheney are evil, capitalism is a big problem, etc. I hope you feel no need to hold a grudge here on the forum....
