A YouTube Girl who likes to wet her pants

[brian prime]

bit late on this one, as far as im aware only america has an age limit of 18, most of the rest of the world is 16, and surprisingly some it is 12, in the uk you can marry at 16, constantly here complaints about youtube vids, thats where most of the free stuff is, if its on there its for public view, i dont like scat, so i dont watch it, i dont like adult babies, yet i dont moan about it, it takes 2 seconds to switch pages. if you dont like it folks, turn it off, and let the others who want to watch it, watch it in peace.

[Peevert]

That article states the age of consent in the Netherlands in 12, which is completely wrong, it's 16. There may be some confusion because it's not considered a crime when two people close in age who are 12 or older have sex; for instance a 14 year old boy and a 13 year old girl can have sex. But a 30 year old dude must keep his distance from the 13 year old girl.

Okay, you're disputing a legitimate newspaper article. Surely, you have some kind of proof. Like a link to the page explaining your imaginary law.

In addition, there is a rule that, if the youngest of the 2 is underage, the age difference can be at most 6 years.

Those of you that quote the law with no clue of what you're talking about really need to be called out for bullshit. That "rule" may or may not exist, if it does exist, WHERE are you talking about? Is it a U.S. "rule"? Is it a Dutch "rule"? Maybe it's an Internet Police "rule".

[Supermaxx]

nevermind, you aren't worth the time.

Ohhhhhhh booo fucking hooo, poor Shaggy didn't hear the answer he wanted so he's just gonna put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la la la la la" until all the annoying adults go away.


To the other above poster, age of consent only applies to physical encounters. This is depiction of sexual content in picture or video format, in which the person being filmed must be 18 years of age or older. WetSet talks a lot about following the rule of law, so if they want to continue in that tradition, the accurate thing to do would be to not host a website linking to someone posting underage sexual content. Or do link to that stuff, it's your website.

I'm just more creeped out by the fat, bearded 40-somethings wanting to know about 17 year olds posting videos. But that's just me. I'm probably weird or something.

[Apemantus]

Okay, you're disputing a legitimate newspaper article.

Yeah, because everything written in newspapers is FACT! Especially when it is a comment piece from a journalist, because they are like factual academics!

Let's actually hear from an academic. This is from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3699814.stm:

Dr Sarah Nelson, a researcher in child sexual abuse at Edinburgh University, said wide variations in the age of consent were too often accepted as the result of cultural and religious differences.

She said: "People say 'within our culture we do it this way or that way' but we know so much now about child abuse. These are arguments made by men who want to have sexual access to children."

Listen to the ramblings of people on message boards, journalists or academics? I know intelligence is generally construed as a bad thing nowadays, and that personal prejudice is much more respected than thoughtful consideration, but hey, when it comes down to it, if you allow journalists to determine your actions, you end up with Fox News and Sarah Palin!

NB: To those of you who support the Palinator, don't worry, irony is a modern phenomenon.

[Shaggy]

Ohhhhhhh booo fucking hooo, poor Shaggy didn't hear the answer he wanted so he's just gonna put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la la la la la" until all the annoying adults go away.

and I'm the child?

[Drying]

Hitler.

Just so this is brought up as well.

For some reason the people on this board still do not know how this type of forums work.
When something is posted, you comment about the subject of the post. Ideally, you give constructive criticism or in some way discuss the subject at hand.
If you want to discuss something that is not directly related to the subject, you create a new topic in the appropriate forum. You do not hijack the post, because then you rob the forum of a place to discuss the original topic, and you make it hard for people to find the discussion you are trying to have.

Furthermore, you trust that the moderators of the forums make the rules, and if you are not the poster or a staff member, you can not be held responsible for the post. You can help a staff member by pointing out posts that break the rules, so they can decide what to do. Don't play judge, because this will only lead to flame wars.

And the last point. Especially in a forum with such a large variety of people, this is very important. Do not bitch about a post just because you don't like it. Others may. If you don't like it, just skip it. It's as easy as the click of a mouse button.

For the lazy people:
1. Don't hijack posts
2. Don't flame people (meaning attacking them personally)
3. Don't make your own rules
4. If you don't like a post, skip it

I don't like having to write a complete post about this, but this is seriously one of the most childish forums I've ever seen. (which is irony, because it is an adult forum... get it?)


Having said this, please continue with your discussion. I don't want my nose to be rubbed in my first point.

[Peevert]

Dr Sarah Nelson, a researcher in child sexual abuse at Edinburgh University, said wide variations in the age of consent were too often accepted as the result of cultural and religious differences.

She said: "People say 'within our culture we do it this way or that way' but we know so much now about child abuse. These are arguments made by men who want to have sexual access to children."

Well that's good to see, because we all know that doctors don't make mistakes. We also know, since she's a doctor, that she has a monopoly on knowledge, and therefore obviously understands what was going through the mind of every male who has ever argued that any legal age which disagrees with her opinion of what a legal age should be clearly "wants to have sexual access to children".

Thank you for clearing this up for us.

[Orange]

Okay, you're disputing a legitimate newspaper article. Surely, you have some kind of proof. Like a link to the page explaining your imaginary law.



Those of you that quote the law with no clue of what you're talking about really need to be called out for bullshit. That "rule" may or may not exist, if it does exist, WHERE are you talking about? Is it a U.S. "rule"? Is it a Dutch "rule"? Maybe it's an Internet Police "rule".

It's not an imaginary law in my Province in Canada, except it's a 5 year gap instead of a 6 year gap. 17 and 22 is okay and 17 and 23 is not.

Of course, the issue of who can legally have sex and who can't usually doesn't have anything to do with what constitutes child pornography.

[simes_wetty]

To the other above poster, age of consent only applies to physical encounters. This is depiction of sexual content in picture or video format, in which the person being filmed must be 18 years of age or older.

As with so much else - just because American law says that the person being filmed must be 18, that does not mean that same applies elsewhere. In the UK it is 16 for instance (the same as the age of consent), so even if these images were pornographic (and I am not convinced they are under UK law) they would be perfectly legal in the UK.

I do not know the age of legal pornography in Australia - where WetSet is hosted - but if it is 16 there too then why should they not allow such links? (The standard internet disclaimer puts the onus of ensuring legality in the territory where you are accessing the internet onto the viewer - whether that would stand up in law I am also not sure!)

[Peevert]

I saw the movie Hanna tonight, it features Saoirse Ronan, a very beautiful Irish actress. There were also two somewhat attractive redheads in it (I have a weakness for redheads). Now, for all of you that think Youtube videos become pornography in the eye of the beholder, I have a question:

If I were to buy this movie when it comes out on DVD, and whack off to one of the redheads in it, would this movie, which has been shown in theaters across the U.S., become "pornography"? Even worse, if I were to whack off to the star, who I believe is 17, would this movie, which has been shown in theaters across the U.S., become "child pornography"?

Child molestation and child pornography are horrendous crimes against nature and humanity. Those of you that trivialize it by comparing it to Youtube videos make me want to vomit.

[Apemantus]

Well that's good to see, because we all know that doctors don't make mistakes. We also know, since she's a doctor, that she has a monopoly on knowledge, and therefore obviously understands what was going through the mind of every male who has ever argued that any legal age which disagrees with her opinion of what a legal age should be clearly "wants to have sexual access to children".

Thank you for clearing this up for us.

Hmmmm, when faced with the choice of a doctor or the musings of some horny old goats on a porn message board, I'd always go with the doctor. Funny, that.

And then in perhaps the best display of irony ever, your next post has the classic line:

"Child molestation and child pornography are horrendous crimes against nature and humanity. Those of you that trivialize it by comparing it to Youtube videos make me want to vomit."

Who here has compared Youtube to child porn? Oh right, sorry, what you meant to say was that older men wanking over underage kids is completely acceptable? I mean, that IS exactly what you are saying. Now, just remind me again what child porn involves? Oh yeah, older men wanking over underage kids!

Let's make this real fxxking clear for those too dumb to understand. It is NOT the Youtube postings that are child pornography, it is the old men wanking over them that are disturbing, STOP trying to justify it!

[Reelingsilk]

Okay, you're disputing a legitimate newspaper article. Surely, you have some kind of proof. Like a link to the page explaining your imaginary law.



Those of you that quote the law with no clue of what you're talking about really need to be called out for bullshit. That "rule" may or may not exist, if it does exist, WHERE are you talking about? Is it a U.S. "rule"? Is it a Dutch "rule"? Maybe it's an Internet Police "rule".

It's a Dutch law, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of...pe#Netherlands

The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16, as specified by the Dutch Criminal Code, Articles 245 and 247, which read:

Art 245: "A person who, out of wedlock, with a person who has reached the age of twelve but has not reached sixteen, performs indecent acts comprising or including sexual penetration of the body is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than eight years or a fine of the fifth category."

Art 247: "A person who, with a person whom he knows to be unconscious or physically unable to resist or to be suffering from such a degree of mental defect or mental disease that he is incapable or not sufficiently capable of exercising or expressing his will in the matter or of offering resistance, performs indecent acts, or who, with a person who has not yet reached the age of sixteen (16) years, out of wedlock, performs indecent acts, or by whom the latter is enticed into performing, or submitting to such acts, out of wedlock, with a third party, is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than six years or a fine of the fourth category."

Consensual sexual relations between adolescents who are close in age are not punished: sexual acts between persons who have reached the age of 12 years are widely tolerated by the courts and the Dutch Public Prosecution Service if the difference in age between the two partners is not too great. The latter is determined at the discretion of the court, though usually three years is deemed acceptable.

Note how the wikipedia article actually gives a link to a Dutch government webpage containing the entire "Wetboek van Strafrecht", or the entirety of Dutch criminal law.

edit: But I don't agree with Apemantus that it's disgusting to wank over that youtube vid. As long as the girl posted it out of her own free will, without any coercion or receiving money, it's not exploitative. Also, it's not an aberration for anyone to become aroused by seeing acts that are deemed erotic, performed by a 17-year old, in fact it's common. So wank away.

[DeltaFoxtrot]

As with so much else - just because American law says that the person being filmed must be 18, that does not mean that same applies elsewhere. In the UK it is 16 for instance (the same as the age of consent), so even if these images were pornographic (and I am not convinced they are under UK law) they would be perfectly legal in the UK.

I do not know the age of legal pornography in Australia - where WetSet is hosted - but if it is 16 there too then why should they not allow such links? (The standard internet disclaimer puts the onus of ensuring legality in the territory where you are accessing the internet onto the viewer - whether that would stand up in law I am also not sure!)

Obviously the site hosting the video or link to the video has to ensure that it is legal by their country's definition first. However, in this case even if it is legal to host this vid/link by Australian standards it may not be legal for you to view it.

Laws governing conduct online can be very very tricky to navigate, especially when you start throwing in people from around the world and the various standards by which they are judged. Which is why most sites disallow anything that is portraying someone under the age of 18... it protects everybody that way.

[Smitty]

Discussions of this topic...

...are trivial, stupid, and obnoxious as fuck. They should not take place on this board.

[Razz]

...are trivial, stupid, and obnoxious as fuck. They should not take place on this board.

They're actually more compelling than about 90% of the other content posted on this board IMO.