BF2S Forums Perez Hilton to be arrested for Miley Cyrus (17yo) up-shirt photo?

ghettoperson wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

burnzz wrote:

what, posting in D & ST?

lol... I was actually half serious...  It's ridiculous to me that we can charge 16 year olds as adults, but we still consider them children for all other purposes.

Society needs to make up its mind about the beginning of adulthood.

Like anyone - at least in the US - would dare propose that. They'd be branded a paedophile and their careers ruined.

Good point...  but I could think of a few people that might and wouldn't care, nor would their fans...

Bill Maher has always been good at defying mainstream views, and I think his fanbase is intellectual enough to appreciate the logic behind this idea.

But yeah, most people are too paranoid and stupid to even consider the possibility of revising our perceptions of age.

Turquoise wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I've always thought they should lower the age limit to 16 for this sort of thing....

what, posting in D & ST?

lol... I was actually half serious...  It's ridiculous to me that we can charge 16 year olds as adults, but we still consider them children for all other purposes.

Society needs to make up its mind about the beginning of adulthood.

agree

CapnNismo wrote:

Holy auto-tune, ATG...

lol, did you see her at 2:45?

Legs spread, hand patting her puss.

She probably has sex with her dad.

ATG wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Holy auto-tune, ATG...

lol, did you see her at 2:45?

Legs spread, hand patting her puss.

She probably has sex with her dad.

Miranda Cosgrove is another annoying teenager who thinks she can sing. Huge electronic interferance nearly melted my cellphone nearby.

I hope Taylor Swift remains the way she is. I hear she's good friends with Miley and the sad part is they sing together. Oh God noooo.

[edit] I remember what I wanted to ask earlier. What ever happend to our dear old perez?[/edit]

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2010-06-22 11:38:30)

You have an excellent point Kmarion.

Personally, I would love to execute him with a flame thrower. Little M2 Flamethrower in the back, VROOOOOOOOOSHHHHH.

LA will always be full of the best and worst people around. Except all the bad people get the publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if magazine companies paid the stars to do bad things they could catch on tape or something to earn income.

Actually no, I'd rather Perez not die but go to prison to get butt fucked by every bitch in there.

Kmarion wrote:

Something I wrote the other day.

Me: "I like how Perez Hilton defends the picture he posted of Miley Cyrus's upskirt. "Oh but she WAS wearing underwear". .. as if its ok to post pictures of children looking up there skirts if they are wearing underwear. What a total and complete idiot. He doesn't even come close to getting it."

_{someone responds}

Me: "No I wouldnt expect any less. Im just pointing out his demented logic. He even went so far as to say she is almost an adult.. ok? and if she was 22 do you think that would make you a classy person? Sharing crotch shots of Women a 17 year old girl without permission no matter what the age is off the charts crude"

Me: "actually its more than just sharing pictures. He posted it knowing that it would drive traffic to his site. He used perversion to exploit a minor. Sounds almost criminal to me."

Even if you're position is "oh well she is a dirty slut and she deserves it" (which may or may not be the case). FFS I'm sure there are plenty of underage girls that wouldn't mind having people post their girly parts posted all over the internet. Does that mean you should do it? Are you going to be the guy that tells the police "oh, well, she doesn't care"?

Interesting points...  Although I've often wondered about the logic behind our perception of 17 year olds from a legal point of view.

For example, it seems kind of ridiculous that, in some states, an 18 year old can be busted for statutory rape for fucking someone who's a day younger than 18.  Yet, if they waited one day to do it, no charge.

Seems a bit fucked up, eh? (no pun intended)

By the same token, the uproar about this picture is significantly more just because she's 17, whereas if she was only a year older, the uproar would be significantly less.

I don't quite get that.   There's no magical difference between someone who's 17 and someone who's 18, but the law seems to attribute a huge difference between the two for no apparent reason.

What makes this even more odd is that, in most states, a 16 year old can file papers to become an "emancipated minor", which essentially grants him or her the legal rights of an adult (short of voting and drinking).  So if provisions exist that allow a 16 year old to voluntarily accept adult status, then why is it that a 16 year old before said paperwork is still a minor?

And of course, even after the paperwork, an upskirt pic of an emancipated 16 year old is just as legally murky as one of a non-emancipated one.

It just seems like the laws connected to this are schizophrenic and arbitrary in nature.

Turquoise wrote:

Interesting points...  Although I've often wondered about the logic behind our perception of 17 year olds from a legal point of view.

For example, it seems kind of ridiculous that, in some states, an 18 year old can be busted for statutory rape for fucking someone who's a day younger than 18.  Yet, if they waited one day to do it, no charge.

Seems a bit fucked up, eh? (no pun intended)

By the same token, the uproar about this picture is significantly more just because she's 17, whereas if she was only a year older, the uproar would be significantly less.

I don't quite get that.   There's no magical difference between someone who's 17 and someone who's 18, but the law seems to attribute a huge difference between the two for no apparent reason.

What makes this even more odd is that, in most states, a 16 year old can file papers to become an "emancipated minor", which essentially grants him or her the legal rights of an adult (short of voting and drinking).  So if provisions exist that allow a 16 year old to voluntarily accept adult status, then why is it that a 16 year old before said paperwork is still a minor?

And of course, even after the paperwork, an upskirt pic of an emancipated 16 year old is just as legally murky as one of a non-emancipated one.

It just seems like the laws connected to this are schizophrenic and arbitrary in nature.

That's it exactly....Arbitrary.  You need to enforce a limit somewhere, and it WILL come down to one day something is illegal, and the next day it isn't.  Even if you lowered the limits for that 17 year old upskirt shot...and made it OK for 17 year old girls to pose for them, what is the difference between 16 years, 364 days and 17?  Not much...and so you keep moving it back.  See what I mean?  There is always going to be some arbitrary limit.  And not everyone will be happy with it. 

Making it 18 seems to make some good sense--people are typically still living as dependents, going to highschool, etc.. before then.  After then, you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law, and thus competent enough to make such a decision.  Of course, I also think the right to drink should be lowered for consistency's sake.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Interesting points...  Although I've often wondered about the logic behind our perception of 17 year olds from a legal point of view.

For example, it seems kind of ridiculous that, in some states, an 18 year old can be busted for statutory rape for fucking someone who's a day younger than 18.  Yet, if they waited one day to do it, no charge.

Seems a bit fucked up, eh? (no pun intended)

By the same token, the uproar about this picture is significantly more just because she's 17, whereas if she was only a year older, the uproar would be significantly less.

I don't quite get that.   There's no magical difference between someone who's 17 and someone who's 18, but the law seems to attribute a huge difference between the two for no apparent reason.

What makes this even more odd is that, in most states, a 16 year old can file papers to become an "emancipated minor", which essentially grants him or her the legal rights of an adult (short of voting and drinking).  So if provisions exist that allow a 16 year old to voluntarily accept adult status, then why is it that a 16 year old before said paperwork is still a minor?

And of course, even after the paperwork, an upskirt pic of an emancipated 16 year old is just as legally murky as one of a non-emancipated one.

It just seems like the laws connected to this are schizophrenic and arbitrary in nature.

That's it exactly....Arbitrary.  You need to enforce a limit somewhere, and it WILL come down to one day something is illegal, and the next day it isn't.  Even if you lowered the limits for that 17 year old upskirt shot...and made it OK for 17 year old girls to pose for them, what is the difference between 16 years, 364 days and 17?  Not much...and so you keep moving it back.  See what I mean?  There is always going to be some arbitrary limit.  And not everyone will be happy with it. 

Making it 18 seems to make some good sense--people are typically still living as dependents, going to highschool, etc.. before then.  After then, you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law, and thus competent enough to make such a decision.  Of course, I also think the right to drink should be lowered for consistency's sake.

It doesn't have to be that way though.  NC law tries to amend this slightly by making the age gap more significant.  Starting at 15, a 3 year age gap is allowed for statutory charges to not be applicable.  So, an 18 year old can have sex with a 15 year old, whereas someone 19 or older can't, and so on.

That at least makes the laws more sane.  Otherwise, the laws overlook the vast difference in implications between an 18 year old fucking a 17 year old, and a 40 year old doing it.  Surely, you would agree that one is very different from the other.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-24 18:23:16)

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Interesting points...  Although I've often wondered about the logic behind our perception of 17 year olds from a legal point of view.

For example, it seems kind of ridiculous that, in some states, an 18 year old can be busted for statutory rape for fucking someone who's a day younger than 18.  Yet, if they waited one day to do it, no charge.

Seems a bit fucked up, eh? (no pun intended)

By the same token, the uproar about this picture is significantly more just because she's 17, whereas if she was only a year older, the uproar would be significantly less.

I don't quite get that.   There's no magical difference between someone who's 17 and someone who's 18, but the law seems to attribute a huge difference between the two for no apparent reason.

What makes this even more odd is that, in most states, a 16 year old can file papers to become an "emancipated minor", which essentially grants him or her the legal rights of an adult (short of voting and drinking).  So if provisions exist that allow a 16 year old to voluntarily accept adult status, then why is it that a 16 year old before said paperwork is still a minor?

And of course, even after the paperwork, an upskirt pic of an emancipated 16 year old is just as legally murky as one of a non-emancipated one.

It just seems like the laws connected to this are schizophrenic and arbitrary in nature.

That's it exactly....Arbitrary.  You need to enforce a limit somewhere, and it WILL come down to one day something is illegal, and the next day it isn't.  Even if you lowered the limits for that 17 year old upskirt shot...and made it OK for 17 year old girls to pose for them, what is the difference between 16 years, 364 days and 17?  Not much...and so you keep moving it back.  See what I mean?  There is always going to be some arbitrary limit.  And not everyone will be happy with it. 

Making it 18 seems to make some good sense--people are typically still living as dependents, going to highschool, etc.. before then.  After then, you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law, and thus competent enough to make such a decision.  Of course, I also think the right to drink should be lowered for consistency's sake.

It doesn't have to be that way though.  NC law tries to amend this slightly by making the age gap more significant.  Starting at 15, a 3 year age gap is allowed for statutory charges to not be applicable.  So, an 18 year old can have sex with a 15 year old, whereas someone 19 or older can't, and so on.

That at least makes the laws more sane.  Otherwise, the laws overlook the vast difference in implications between an 18 year old fucking a 17 year old, and a 40 year old doing it.  Surely, you would agree that one is very different from the other.

I thought most places did that, we have laws like that here...

"A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual no more than two years older than them. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is no more than five years older than them."

And 16 is the age of consent.

Turquoise wrote:

It doesn't have to be that way though.  NC law tries to amend this slightly by making the age gap more significant.  Starting at 15, a 3 year age gap is allowed for statutory charges to not be applicable.  So, an 18 year old can have sex with a 15 year old, whereas someone 19 or older can't, and so on.

That at least makes the laws more sane.  Otherwise, the laws overlook the vast difference in implications between an 18 year old fucking a 17 year old, and a 40 year old doing it.  Surely, you would agree that one is very different from the other.

I'll give that to ya...age of consent laws are stupid.  But I'm sure you see what I mean--there is always a line in the sand, and it WILL be arbitrary.  To fit the needs of current society, it should probably be changed...but hey, in NY, if 2 16 year olds consent to sex, they are both criminals with the other person as their victim.  How dumb!  Age proximity allowances ought to be made, like NC, but perhaps a bit more like what Winston said.

jord wrote:

There seems to be an overwelming majority of Americans that agree your age of consent and age to buy alcohol should be lowered. I wonder why in a democratic nation nothing has changed given such support... Are you Americans in line with your fellow countrymen or out of touch with them?

Old people vote in large numbers.  Young people do not.  That's probably a lot of why what we say on here gets ignored.  That, and both of those can have the 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' argument used against them.

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

There seems to be an overwelming majority of Americans that agree your age of consent and age to buy alcohol should be lowered. I wonder why in a democratic nation nothing has changed given such support... Are you Americans in line with your fellow countrymen or out of touch with them?

I'm not really opposed to the age 21 drinking age. Most 18,19,20 year olds are binge drinking retards and anything that potentially keeps them out of a car while drunk is fine with me. By the time a person turns 21 they have some sense to them.

I've always maintained the European view (which is rare) that drinking responsibly at younger ages with family eases people into alcohol. Rather than a "Ive just scored a bottle of absynth LEZ DO IT".

With regards to my last post I think people are only annoyed at the age laws when it affects them. When someone becomes old enough to drink legally I imagine they become appathetic to the "lower it to 16/17/18" cause.