23-year-old woman who is trapped in the body of an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD girl introduces her parents to a new love interest

[Cosmik Debris]

Come on. That act governs film and publications. That has nothing to do with what people keep on their phones. We weren't talking about making movies. You explicity said:


So yet again please show me the law that says I can't keep pictures of my 20y/o girlfriend who looks 16.

First you said there was no such act. I stated a nude image of her would get you in trouble. You will be bust if it's found on your phone. Go ahead and try it.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Or pictures of your own kids, nephews etc. The Film & Publications board has fkall to do with that. Not sure how this is even an argument.

@Cosmik Debris According to you parents can't keep pictures of their kids on their phones?

Oh yes, it does. You seem not to bother with the links I post:

Why do people think it is acceptable to post nude photographs of children on social networks?​

It may be some form of peer pressure, although some people are unaware of the dangers associated with such conduct. A person cannot use lack of knowledge as a defence if charged with such an offence.

An overview on the law on child pornography in South Africa – PPM Attorneys

What are the dangers of posting nude pictures of a child online?

www.ppmattorneys.co.za

 

[Polymathic]

Check the dates of the acts.

The act you mentioned is from 2005 and FHM, FHM and others were operating in the early 2010s.

 

[Kosmik]

Maybe he has a small dick?

What happens when she gets pregnant?

Can she? She is mentally mature but the body may very well not be.

 

[Polymathic]

​

My attempt to make things less weird in this thread.

Shauna Gets Carded at a Sex Shop | I Am Shauna Rae​

I saw about clip from their program I I've already know what every episode is about.

Girl goes to x . People think she's 8, they find out her actual age, cameras get their reaction to finding out her actual age

 

[saor]

First you said there was no such act.

Nee jinne I can't argue with you if you can't keep your argument straight. Firstly, I didn't say there was no such act. I said the act doesn't govern what people may keep on their phones - parents can keep pictures of their kids, guys can keep pictures of their 20y/o girlfriends who look 15. In fact even if my 20y/o girlfriend jokingly pretends to be 15 the act you quoted has no bearing on that.

I stated a nude image of her would get you in trouble.

Nope. You stated:

Are you aware that the law says possessing an image of a minor or a person that appears to be a minor are the same?

So anyway. If you're just gonna shift the goal posts this is pointless.

(Even if I grant the nude thing, think about what you're saying for a second: That the deciding factor about whether to keep a nude pic of my girlfriend isn't whether she's of legal age, but whether she appears of legal age. That's the most ridiculously subjective metric ever. )

 

[ponder]

Nee jinne I can't argue with you if you can't keep your argument straight. Firstly, I didn't say there was no such act. I said the act doesn't govern what people may keep on their phones - parents can keep pictures of their kids, guys can keep pictures of their 20y/o girlfriends who look 15. In fact even if my 20y/o girlfriend jokingly pretends to be 15 the act you quoted has no bearing on that.

Nope. You stated:

So anyway. If you're just gonna shift the goal posts this is pointless.

(Even if I grant the nude thing, think about what you're saying for a second: That the deciding factor about whether to keep a nude pic of my girlfriend isn't whether she's of legal age, but whether she appears of legal age. That's the most ridiculously subjective metric ever. )

You're wasting your time.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The act you mentioned is from 2005 and FHM, FHM and others were operating in the early 2010s.

Did FHM publish kiddy porn?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Nee jinne I can't argue with you if you can't keep your argument straight. Firstly, I didn't say there was no such act.

My mistake. The thread is fast moving. Ponder said that:

Not according to the law in SA.

There is no law against you having nude pics of you 19yr old gf looking like a 13yr old. She's not underage therefore not illegal.

Bullshit!

parents can keep pictures of their kids, guys can keep pictures of their 20y/o girlfriends who look 15. In fact even if my 20y/o girlfriend jokingly pretends to be 15 the act you quoted has no bearing on that.

Did you read this part of the law:

possessing an image of a minor or a person that appears to be a minor

It does not exonerate you from having a pic of your kids or girlfriend who looks 15.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

(Even if I grant the nude thing, think about what you're saying for a second: That the deciding factor about whether to keep a nude pic of my girlfriend isn't whether she's of legal age, but whether she appears of legal age. That's the most ridiculously subjective metric ever. )

That's what the law in SA says. Not my fault it's ridiculous. It remains the law.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

You're wasting your time.

You were the one that said the Film and Publications act isn't a law. It is.

 

[wingnut771]

It does not exonerate you from having a pic of your kids or girlfriend who looks 15.

Lock up every parent in the country then. No need to investigate.

 

[Cray]

possessing an image of a minor or a person that appears to be a minor

Has that part of the law actually been tested in court? Our government makes lots of badly worded laws, this seems like one that would get slapped down in a second because it's all about interpretation.

 

[Polymathic]

Did FHM publish kiddy porn?

According to your definition, yes

 

[access]

id you read this part of the law:

possessing an image of a minor or a person that appears to be a minor

post a screen snip of the law


it appears none of the literature that you linked contains the text "a person that appears to be a minor" when searching for it

 

[ponder]

Has that part of the law actually been tested in court? Our government makes lots of badly worded laws, this seems like one that would get slapped down in a second because it's all about interpretation.

He's referring to the film and publications act and not even reading it correctly.

Child pornography means any image, however created, or any description or presentation of a person, real or simulated, who is, or who is depicted or described or presented as being, under the age of 18 years, of an explicit or sexual nature, whether such image or description or presentation is intended to stimulate erotic or aesthetic feelings or not, including any such image or description of such person.

Recording your sexual encounters with your 19yr old gf that looks 16 is not a crime as you are not claiming she's under the age of 18 so as to pass it off as child porn which is what the film and publications act is referring to. It's the same reason you won't see pornhub etc allow videos claim in the title that the actors are under 18 even though they are both 25 as it's being passed off as child porn, they'll allow "teen bangs stepfather" as teen can be 19.

 

[Cray]

He's referring to the film and publications act and not even reading it correctly.



Recording your sexual encounters with your 19yr old gf that looks 16 is not a crime as you are not claiming she's under the age of 18 so as to pass it off as child porn which is what the film and publications act is referring to.

Ah okay, thanks, that makes sense.

 

[Vorastra]

Okes are still arguing lmao
Amazing.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Lock up every parent in the country then. No need to investigate.

They have the power to. It's not my fault that is the law. I'm just pointing it out. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Has that part of the law actually been tested in court? Our government makes lots of badly worded laws, this seems like one that would get slapped down in a second because it's all about interpretation.

I don't know. And I'm not searching for it on the internet that has algorithms that follow you around.