Good job, Madonna.
I cannot believe the comments over at the Guardian. Are the British people really such prigs? First there’s no statute of limitations on screwing a 15 year old girl or grabbing a woman’s tit 40 years ago, now this – notice the commenters are calling this “sexual assault,” saying it is “child pornography,” and claiming in credibly that it’s still sexual assault even if the girls consented to the action and is ok with it, which is in fact the case.
Are naked 17 year old girls really “child pornography?” Child pornography is kiddie porn. Those are movies of little children having sex, usually with adults. Those are little kids, usually 12-under. The very idea is pretty sickening. But how is a naked 17 year old girl, who in fact looks exactly like a naked female adult (I am serious – have you ever seen a naked 17 year old girl? It looks like a woman, trust me – I have seen plenty of them) the same thing as a 45 year old man with a beer belly on top of a 9 nine year old girl having sex with her?
Child porn is illegal because we find the very idea to be sickening and horrible. Further the kids are pretty obviously being exploited. By calling naked 17 year old girls “kiddie porn” we imply that there is something sickening, evil and awful about a naked 17 year old girl. What’s so evil about a naked 17 year old girl? Further, it’s usually the case with a naked photo of a 17 year old girl that she’s not being exploited. In fact, in most cases, she took the photo herself. She’s exploiting herself? How the Hell can you do that?
Look at the comments. It doesn’t matter if the girl was ok with it or not? What?
Ok look. I have a woman over at my house. I don’t ask her permission first, but instead I just pull her top down without her permission*. She’s shocked of course, but then she relents and says it’s ok. I just committed sexual assault? Are you kidding?
The girl is a minor? She is? And even if she is, so what. Guess what idiots? The age of consent in the UK is 16. So that girl could easily consent to have sex with Madonna or any other adult. If she can have consent to have sex with Madonna, surely she can consent to let Madonna pull her top down, right? How can she consent to have sex with Madonna but not consent to let Madonna pull her top down? Why is is it consensual sex if she has sex with Madonna but sexual assault if Madonna pulls her top down? How can she legally have sex with an adult, yet if she takes a photograph of herself with her clothes off, or a photo of herself having sex with that adult, now all of a sudden it’s illegal “child pornography?”
See all the comments about “grooming?” By pulling the girl’s top down, Madonna was “grooming” the girl. Grooming means an adult seducing a child. It’s the lead-up to the actual sex. How is it that Madonna can legally have sex with this girl, but if Madonna tries to seduce the girl beforehand, it’s illegal “grooming?”
Notice how none of this makes any sense at all?
*I never ask permission to do most preliminary sexual things with a woman because there’s nothing more retarded than that. Any man who asks a woman for permission before doing preliminary sexual things with her is a moron. Any man who checks to get a woman’s verbal permission before having sex with her is a moron. You don’t do that. You just attack her. That’s called sexual assault, yes, but sexual assault is essential to seduction. No sexual assault, no seduction.
