From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Seriously now  
Date & Time: 04/20/91 14:32:44
Message Number 15618

DrF>How 'bout child pornography...
   
T> Nope, bad argument... A child is not sexually developed, and a
T> child's sex organs are not capable of sexual activity.
     
   Do you think pornography MUST involve sexactual sexual activity? Most
Playboys don't show the actual act of sex.
    
T> Also, a child is BY DEFINITION absolutely **not** capable of giving
T> informed consent to any sexual practice. Therefore, your arcgument
T> doesn't work.
      
   Huh? I thought we were arguing whether "Anything's okay -- provided
nobody gets hurt and everyone agrees."  Granted. Children can't give
informed consent to sexual practices.  But a child might agree.
     
   All I'm saying is that the above statement seems too broad for my
ethical tastes, and I chose three fairly easy examples of why I 
disagree.  A child CAN say he/she agrees to be photographed nude (or
whatever... that doesn't physically hurt the child.) What do you
think of my other two points?
                   //Dragonfly//