[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

Well you seemed to be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent while also saying the legal age for porn should match it

Anyway yes, you can't completely eradicate underage sex and measures should be taken to deal with it's consequences but there should also be a focus on trying to prevent such a situation occurring in the first place, or at least reducing it in any case.