Not seen this movie yet but half of you need your heads examined. - Maladolescenza (1977) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] openstorage 18 years ago

I think the problem nowadays is not so much the age of consent, it's the age difference between partners. If kids were going with other kids there own age it would be fine! The problem I have is the age gap nowadays. 16 year old girls with blokes close too 40 (or older!) for example, it's bloody sick. When I see examples of so called 'couples' like this, all I can think is, God, if that were my Daughter I'd bloody kill him!

Never seen this film, but judging by some of the posts, I'd be scared to watch it! There seem to be some real sick puppies who are watching this for the wrong reasons. It may be a good film, but sadly, I think the wrong type of audience is seeking this film out :-(

From what I've read about it, it sounds like some boring kids sex education film actually! lol

reply

[–] ctigerlass 18 years ago

You have made some valid points, if a couple of fourteen year olds experiment then that is ok in the sense of they will be curious but they aren't being filmed for the prurient pleasure of middle aged men though... most normal people will agree that even an 11 year old with a 17 year old is way wrong as shown in this film

reply

[–] Parrhesia02 18 years ago

The problem I have is the age gap nowadays. 16 year old girls with blokes close too 40 (or older!) for example, it's bloody sick.

It's bloody biology, too.

When I see examples of so called 'couples' like this, all I can think is, God, if that were my Daughter I'd bloody kill him!

Uh huh.

reply

[–] Gator_MacReady 18 years ago

Maladolescenza is not illegal to own.

Pedos may buy it for their own reasons as they may well do buy some teeny-bopper magazine to masturbate to. The existence of this film is not to exploit children or entice men.

Now...there's something that really bothers me. In this world we live in, it's ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS the man who is to be blamed for sexual crimes.

Where I live there has recently been a Woman's Rape Council set up for obvious reasons. I mean the streets are obviously riddled with disgusting men who will rape anything that moves (female only).

Because rape is never something that can happen to a man is it? Or maybe it does and it maybe for a guy it's worse (I'm not a victim btw, I just like to keep a wide-open mind). Who knows? It's not publicised very well. And when all these support groups are set-up to help women who have been raped a man who may well have suffered the same is left to deal with it on his own.

And who the hell said that all Pedos are men??? Why are we to be blamed for everything?

Woman can be (and are) Pedos too. But the media hardly ever uses that angle in this unfair post-feminism world. We need an easy target and this whole 'it could be any man' logic is obscene.

I feel like I should be ashamed for being a male because of all the anti-men crap that is out there. We are made out to be cause of almost every goddamn crime out there purely because people don't want to admit that a woman can be capable of the same thing.

I want to believe in equality. But equal rights means equal. It doesn't mean the mum always gets custody, it doesn't mean that female pedos don't exist, it doesn't mean that a man who has suffered a sexual assault should feel exiled because it's only something that happens to women (by these evil men who are everywhere).

I'm sick and tired of hearing parents say that they won't let their kids walk to school because 'you just don't know who's out there'. What a load of crap! I walked to school when I was a kid, all 2 miles of it on my own and nothing ever happened to me. It's just that the media panders to your fears to sell more papers and loves to make you believe that there are (male) Pedos on every street corner waiting to snatch your children away. It's just not true.

Yes, Pedos are weirdos and I can't possibly see why anyone could be attracted to a kid, it gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking about it. Yes, there are thousands of pictures out there on the internet being traded back and forth by Pedos. These people DO exist, but nowhere near the numbers that crazed zealots and scare-mongers make you believe. And are you telling me that in ALL these cases that there is not one woman involved? *beep*

There are female Pedos out there, way more than you think. So please stop telling me that Maladolescenza is a shocking outrage that is only exists to satisfy middle-aged men.

The film should be viewed as art. It's not a particularly great film but interesting nonetheless and with nice photography. Just enjoy it for what it is. So what if it has naked kids in it? Have you ever been to a nude beach? Is everyone there a sick freak? We're born naked, we're supposed to be naked. Clothes are un-natural. That's why they call it 'naturism'. The sex in this film is 'simulated'. It's make belief.

And you know what, the more you raise kids in an environment where you tell them that all men are evil, sex is wrong and nudity is forbidden-the more they want to get involved.

It's just a movie. An old, mostly forgotten movie. It's absolutely harmless and poses no more threat to children (on the street or in the movie) than the lastest adolescent pop idol with the agent who knows to dress her in a wonderbra and hot pants.

Pedos exist in whatever capacity, either sex, any type. This film has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

To potential Buyers:

The above post by Gator contains a critical error:

Maladolescenza is not illegal to own.

It does not contain geographic data to qualify the above statement.
This film was once banned from import by more than 60 countries, and simple possession of it can land you in jail or prison in many states in the USA.
Other countries have worse punishment, or none at all.

Check your local laws, then save your money. This film uses "Art" as a sick excuse to make a film showing 12 year olds having sex, getting raped, and being murdered.

The "Uncut" version is legal to own in only 3 countries on earth, don't ask, I'm not telling. If you want to watch things like this bad enough to take that risk, then maybe you need to get some help of some kind.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] Gator_MacReady 18 years ago

Don't talk to me like that okay. I never said I badly wanted to watch it, smartass.

From Wikipedia...

'When Maladolescenza came out, it was decried as child pornography almost immediately, and the film was banned or heavily cut in many countries, but the movie is legal today.'

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

I was not being a smartass, I thought I made it rather obvious in the first line that I was speaking to potential buyers, I was addressing your statement, not you.
When I want to say something to an individual, I address them directly, not in the third person, referencing your post does not constitute speaking directly to you.

I have re-edited my post, to hopefully make that more clear for you.

btw, from wikipedia, same page:

This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry

And:

Categories: Wikipedia articles needing style editing | Articles with unsourced statements

In other words, it, like all of wiki, was written by someone like you or me, who thinks they know what they are talking about. The many inserts by wiki show that almost none of that information has been verfied.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider it unwise to risk prison time and associated publicity on the information of someone with a wiki account, and wishfull thinking.

There is one, highly edited and blurred version that is legal in many countries, but other versions are not.
To make a blanket statement that this film is legal, is misleading.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] potless 18 years ago

I should think everyone should take on board what Dismenot is saying.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

Thanks, glad someone got it.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jiffypack 18 years ago

A late reply, but, As Dismenot says, wiki is written by people like you and me and occasionally something is written which is innacurate and it usually gets changed by someone else, I'm surprised that quote has lasted so long on wiki because is such a rediculous wide ranging statement to make, with no back up sources. "it is legal today" In which countries? Is the obvious question.

The only people who have such a blinkered view of the internet, that they don't think to mention which country they are talking about are in my experience Americans. If we assume the writer was American we can assume they wrote it because it is available to buy on dvd and even from some American based companies. The person therefore took that to mean it must be legal in America.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

If we assume the writer was American we can assume they wrote it because it is available to buy on dvd and even from some American based companies

This DVD is illegal to distribute in every first-world country on the planet.
It is not available from any legitimate distributor in the USA.
As for the "American based companies" you mention, I can only assume you mean legal places like eBay and Amazon, both of whom will remove the listing when reported.(USA anyways)

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] jiffypack 18 years ago

"This DVD is illegal to distribute in every first-world country on the planet."

You have nothing to back up that claim, you're just as bad as the wiki writer, generalising without references.

"This DVD is illegal to distribute in every first-world country on the planet."

Not when the wiki article was written either which is the point I was making.

By "American based companies" I mean American based companies who sell dvds as a business, I do not mean amazon or ebay sellers, if I meant them I would have said so, (but I wouldn't have meant them in the context of my post so I never would have said that if you see what I mean).

Depends what you mean by "legitimate" I consider a company with a website and listing a business address/email & phone number to be legitimate. You may have other ideas.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

You have nothing to back up that claim, you're just as bad as the wiki writer, generalising without references.

Not quite, I use federal law as my reference.
I'll post Title 18 for you, but here is a link for the UK, you can do the rest of the research yourself.
"film" and "images" are the same thing btw.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.22.36.htm

This "film" is classifiable as child pornography in several ways.
Take note at the bottom, where it does not exclude film.

People sell drugs online too dude, doesn't make it legal.
Please post this USA website address.

Title 18:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256 Prev | Next

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] jiffypack 18 years ago

I thought from reading your posts you were slightly more intelligent than that. Many idiots on the web think that the laws of the USA apply exclusively to the internet, and the laws of the USA apply to all other countries in all areas.

You're not seriously suggesting that just because the USA has a "title 18" law that it applies to all "first world" countries? Or that it's interpretation would apply to all "first world" countries? Or are you defining "first world countries" as meaning the USA and the USA alone? In other words the USA is the only country on Earth entitled to be called a "first world country".

You included a link to the UK laws, so presumably you include UK as a "first world" country. The UK prosecution authorities and the USA authorities have tried and failed to prosecute for naked images of children. A jury (and ultimately Law lords/Supreme court) have to agree that the images constitute child porn. Just because YOU say so does not make it so, it has to proven in a test case to make it so.

But how many other "first world" countries are there that you do not provide links for? and how many of these countries have specifically declared this film illegal? So you see you are as bad the wiki writer because you made an all encomapassing statement with no references.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

"I thought from reading your posts you were slightly more intelligent than that. Many idiots on the web think that the laws of the USA apply exclusively to the internet, and the laws of the USA apply to all other countries in all areas."

Well, I guess the gloves are off now...
Many idiots on the web can't read either, I never said or implied the above or any such thing like it, but you want to be insulting so you made it up.
What an ass.

"You're not seriously suggesting that just because the USA has a "title 18" law that it applies to all "first world" countries? Or that it's interpretation would apply to all "first world" countries? Or are you defining "first world countries" as meaning the USA and the USA alone? In other words the USA is the only country on Earth entitled to be called a "first world country"."

Why ask the above when you partially answer it below?
Oh yeah, I forgot, you're being an ass.

"You included a link to the UK laws, so presumably you include UK as a "first world" country."

Yup.

"The UK prosecution authorities and the USA authorities have tried and failed to prosecute for naked images of children."

They have also tried and succeeded, wording your sentence as if it has never happened does not change the facts, it only shows that you are trying to play with words, and you're not very good at it.

"A jury (and ultimately Law lords/Supreme court) have to agree that the images constitute child porn."

Yup.

"Just because YOU say so does not make it so,"

True, what I "say" is irrelevant, same as you, again, neither changes the facts.

"it has to proven in a test case to make it so."

Eh? Lol, a "test case"? I guess you believe that there is no one sitting in prison for making/distributing kiddy porn and we are all waiting for them to do some "tests" to see if there really is such a thing.
What an idiotic thing to say.

"But how many other "first world" countries are there that you do not provide links for? and how many of these countries have specifically declared this film illegal? So you see you are as bad the wiki writer because you made an all encomapassing statement with no references."

Are you really this stupid?
1. I am not required to provide links to laws in every country, especially on a movie board, how utterly ridiculous can you get?
2. I do not know of ANY country, that puts specific film titles down in statutes, and I doubt you do either, just as I am equally sure that you know that.
Next you'll be claiming they have to name specific pictures as well.
If you do not believe that this film falls under title 18, feel free to take your copy to the local police station and share it with the folks there, pay close attention to what happens next.
3.Wrong, I provided two, if you need more than that, you need to learn how to use a search engine.

Your argument is banal, this film has been banned in more countries than you can shake a stick at and you know it.
You are simply trying to hassle me because I am so outspoken against this "film".

If this piece of junk is so innocent, why do you not provide the link I asked for hmmm?

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] jiffypack 18 years ago

This particular argument between you and I is because you said this

"This DVD is illegal to distribute in every first-world country on the planet."

I said you have no references and you quote US law - rediculous!

You said it without any references (because you don't have any) references which prove this film is illegal, I am not aware of any cases going to court in any country for this film other than Germany...are you? Re: the German case, I do not know what type of court it was and who or what was being investigated by the court.

"True, what I "say" is irrelevant, same as you, again, neither changes the facts."

That's just it! With the exception of Germany (subject to the appeal case) there are no "facts" - certainly not for every first world country, and certainly not known by you.....otherwise you would cite a reference (encompassing all 1st world countries not just 1 or 2).

When I refer to a "test case" I was obviously (maybe not to you) referring to a test case about this film. Until it is proven in court in each country you and I simply do not know what this films status is in each country. But you decided say without evidence that every 1st world country will find this illegal. All you have to back yourself up is a crystal ball and a quotation of USA and UK law. Some countries will be more likely to find it illegal and some will be more likely to find it legal. Quoting laws of individual countries doesn't really help, you have to understand how those laws have been traditionally interpreted in those countries. I'll hazard a guess that you have no idea how all the 1st world countries have interpreted their laws in this area.

So I told you, you are as bad as the wiki writer (who said "it is legal" without any references).

You're not required to give links, I agree, but I was merely pointing out to you that what you had said was your unsubstantiated opinion, which you were stating as though it were a fact. Quoting US law does not change anything. It (your statement) is still conjecture. You have decided to defend yourself - a foolish mistake because what you said is impossible to defend. I think you need to rethink your strategy.

I'll also point out that somewhere else on this board you told someone off for assuming something about you (about how you came to see this film). You are of course a hypocrit, because you have assumed the same about me, twice, that I own a copy of this film.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

When I refer to a "test case" I was obviously (maybe not to you) referring to a test case about this film. Until it is proven in court in each country you and I simply do not know what this films status is in each country.

Quoting US law does not change anything. It (your statement) is still conjecture.

To avoid getting long winded, as I am tiring of this, I'll stick with the USA's legal system for my reply.

A test case is not necessary, the film quite clearly falls within title 18.
ex: When one commits murder,(as defined by law that I'm not going to look up, you know what I mean.) it does not matter if one used a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, it is still murder. it is not necessary to have a "test case" on each individual item used to see if it is still murder.

ex2: If the sign says "Speed limit 30 mph" then it is against the law to go faster than that right? It is not necessary to have a test case to see if they mean just cars, if you go 50 mph on a bicycle down that road, you can be arrested for speeding, period.

I do not need to "prove" my "opinion" of the two examples above, by providing some reference to a case in Timbuktoo USA, because the law has defined the crimes already, just as title 18 defines child pornography.
I think you need to rethink your perception of how the law works.

In your other post you claim, "I see it as important to correct misleading information on these boards" but the only board you have posted on to date is this one, so you are either lying, or you created this nic solely for posting on this board, one wonders which it is, and why.
Answer that? I doubt you will.

I'll also point out that somewhere else on this board you told someone off for assuming something about you (about how you came to see this film). You are of course a hypocrit, because you have assumed the same about me, twice, that I own a copy of this film.

Hmmm, I have to give you that one, if you do not own a copy, I apologise. However, given your seemingly vast knowledge of this film, I think it was reasonable to assume you do own it. Either that, or you have a photographic memory which is unlikely.
Do you, or do you not own it? If not how can we know that you are correct about the scenes and not me? Qualify your reference, I have already stated elsewhere that I only saw it once, playing at being an enigma discredits every statement you make.

I will point out that you ask for references, but you refuse to give them, I have asked for this link you claim exists twice now, yet you will not supply it, though you continue to demand references from me.
I am not the only hipocrite in this room.

As such, until you reciprocate, my side of this discussion is over, you are worse than the wiki guy and (what you claim of me) put together, you make references but do not supply information that you claim you actually have, while demanding references from me. Where is the link to this "legitimate" USA distributor you claim exists?
Put up or shut up, though I doubt you'll do either, or prove yourself a liar.

Look at it this way, I'm doing what you claim to do, correcting an inaccurate statement, you claim there is a legitimate US distributor,(you also insinuate that because of this it is legal to own in the US) I say there isn't, prove me wrong.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] jiffypack 18 years ago

Firstly I'll make the observation that in your reply you still failed to defend this statement.

"This DVD is illegal to distribute in every first-world country on the planet."

You failed to do so because it is impossible to defend that statement.

Now on to the particulars:

You gave some examples of breaking the law and said it is not neccessary for test cases. I have to disagree until a law has been interpreted in a court (it only needs to happen once) in a "test case" then it is not absolutely clear what the result will be in all cases (that's why we have lawyers, to argue a case from a point of view). You mention murder, well even in murder there are sometimes extenuating circumstances which when met by the court for the first time will require a "test case", for example, self defence or mental torture. Example: a test case may have already found that a wife stabbing her husband while in a violent struggle after years of violent abuse, is enough for the wife to not be guilty of murder. However a new case comes up where the abused wife has systematically over months poisoned the husband, this would need to be tested because the defence is mental torture and no legal responsibility for actions etc. The Prosecution is saying there was no clear and present danger therefore there was an element of choice.

The bicycle case had to be tested at some point in time, it has been done in some countries so the citizens of those countries know now that the law also applies to bicycles.

Another example: Motor vehicles ("used" on the road) require in some countries an annual licence. Someone may at one point in time have thought the vehicle is on the road but it is not "in use" therefore no need for a licence. A test case will require the court to decide whether a vehicle on the highway is by definition "in use" even if it is never moved.

With reference to this film and your 'title 18', when and if the first case of owning/distributing "Maladolescenza" comes to court in USA the denfendant will have a lawyer who will suggest the best possible avenue of defence. This may or may not result in an acquittal. No-one is able to predict the outcome of the case beforehand, which is what you profess to be able to do, not just for the USA but for EVERY first world country. And your ego stops you from admitting you really have no way of knowing that this is illegal in EVERY first world country.

Why my useraccount? Because I came here (a board about a contentious film) not to entirely defend the film but to offer support to those who claim this is not (or not necessarily) KP. I have no desire for those shallow minded users who would attack me for expressing my views on this film to know my other username on IMDB. You are guilty of the same worries (though you will deny it) because I notice you are at pains to make your views on this film very clear at many opportunities, to kind of justify your presence on this board. So that no-one misunderstands your presence here.

Do I own a copy? No.
How can we be sure I am correct and not you? Because I have assumed you saw this many years ago - either that or your memory is attrocious. Whereas I saw it this summer '06.

You ask me to say which USA business(s) is/are selling this film. I refuse to give it because I do not want to be the catalyst that brings down on them a visit from the authorities and the beginning for them of many months of hell. I have said more than I wish to on the subject already. You on the other hand can have no objection for justifying how you know FOR A FACT that this film is illegal in ALL first world countries. Sorry about the block caps but you do tend to miss the point.

,(you also insinuate that because of this it is legal to own in the US)

I never did, I suggested that might have been the reason the wiki writer thought it was legal, and at the time they wrote it it was legal in at least 1 country so they were correct, but they didn't qualify the statement which made it ambiguous and potentially misleading. You can see below in quote what I actually said, how you came to think that from this, I am insinuating that the film is legal in the US because it is for sale in the US is frankly beyond me......

If we assume the writer was American we can assume they wrote it because it is available to buy on dvd and even from some American based companies. The person therefore took that to mean it must be legal in America.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

Why my useraccount? Because I came here (a board about a contentious film) not to entirely defend the film but to offer support to those who claim this is not (or not necessarily) KP. I have no desire for those shallow minded users who would attack me for expressing my views on this film to know my other username on IMDB.

That's enough for me, thanks for answering.

You are guilty of the same worries (though you will deny it) because I notice you are at pains to make your views on this film very clear at many opportunities, to kind of justify your presence on this board. So that no-one misunderstands your presence here.

You have a slightly skewed view, and claiming I will deny it, (I do) does not mean I do so for the same reason as you imply.
I do not go to "pains" at all, this is a forum where opinions are expressed, people come here and understandably do not read every thread, so over the years I have repeated my view on this film, this does not mean I am "worried" about anything, but once again you slide your little inuendos into your post, and I have now tired of them.
You on the other hand, are afraid to use your own nic, which means you have something to hide, your excuse of "shallow minded people" does not wash, as you know as well as I that there are those types on just about every board at IMDB.

You have managed to do one thing however, this is by far the longest that I have ever carried on a conversation with a sockpuppet, something I normally refuse to do.
But, be you real or be you a sockpuppet, I am still not required to spend hours posting links simply because someone wishes to defend this movie, nor do I believe it would do any good, if I posted a link to a specific case, you would I am sure, conjure up some excuse why it applied to that person only, and still must be "tested" against other people and proves nothing, even though you cannot back up your argument that it is legal anywhere.

As I said in the other post, Google is your friend, but since you cannot (or will not) prove my statement wrong, you really have no business attacking it.
As far as me "proving" mine, I guess you need to be reminded that this is a forum, not a university, I need to prove nothing, especially to a sockpuppet unable to prove me wrong in the first place.
Prove it is legal anywhere and I will edit my statement, until then, you are talking out of your hat just as much as you claim I do.

Lastly:
I do not debate with sockpuppets, about anything.
Cya.

Edit: Typed fast and missed a couple words, lol.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] jiffypack 18 years ago

"You on the other hand, are afraid to use your own nic, which means you have something to hide, your excuse of "shallow minded people" does not wash, as you know as well as I that there are those types on just about every board at IMDB."

It certainly does wash, why should I volunteer myself into the firing line of imbeciles? By using an alias I have in one stroke avoided any possibility of being hassled. Take for example a thread you are involved in "There's a paedophile on the Big Brother (UK) board". The truth in my words is plain to see.

I am not the one with anything to prove....I am not the one who made a blanket statement. If I may remind you it was you who made a blanket statement, A statement impossible to prove.

You want my statement on this - after mis-representing me? Here it is...

This film may or may not be legal depending on where you may live and there is a real possibility that the authorities will try to prosecute you for owning this film, it will be for the court to decide in your country whether or not this film is legal. It will be for you & your lawyer to decide on what grounds to argue it is legal.

You have managed to do one thing however, this is by far the longest that I have ever carried on a conversation with a sockpuppet, something I normally refuse to do.

That ego is hard to get rid of isn't it. I could tell from the way you responded to others here that you would find it hard not to reply.

reply

[–] harrythebastard 18 years ago

I saw some of the film and I would like to say that it's not child pornography; but... if you watch this movie solely for the purpose of getting off, then who are you kidding; you are most likely a peadophile.

This chick Marla did NOT have testicular cancer.

reply

[–] Eliakim48 17 years ago

Quote: "A 12-year-old girl or boy is capable of making their own decisions. The age of consent is 12-14 in over half the countries of the world."

It's 12 in Mexico and 14 in Canada. And in the U.S. it varies from state to state, running from around 14 to 18 years old.

And you can be assured that in the U.S. there are a lot of 12-14 year olds doing their thing with their boyfriends, too. It's certainly a lot more rampant today, than it ever was 30 years ago (when this movie was made). And today, with these junior high kids, they're simply doing it not out of love or even infatuation, but because it's a "rite of passage" and simply that's what the rest of them are doing. They engage in this kind of sex simply as a "method of introduction" -- like "How are you; let's have sex."

reply

[–] Gator_MacReady 15 years ago

I have seen it now.

It's not worth all of this outraged discussion.

It's not worth any discussion.

Seriously guys, just leave it alone and move on.

Meh!

reply

[–] officer1044 15 years ago

I WOULD LIKE TO TELL EVERYONE NOT TO LISTEN DESMIN. I AM INVOLVED IN LAW ENFEORCEMENT IN THE USA AND I CAN TELL YOU WITH 100% ACCURACY THAT THIS MOVIE IS COMPLETELY LEGAL TO OWN IN ALL 50 STATES AND ALL US TERRITORIES. THATS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES INLUDING FBI, DEA, AND US CUSTOMS. I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS FILM OR ITS CONTENT MATTER. I AM ONLY GIVING THE LEGAL FACTS THAT EVEYONE IS DEBATING. THANK YOU.

reply