在古代14歲已經結婚生仔做人阿媽﹐去到現代14歲才變成了兒童。
為什麼一個生理心理上發育建存的14歲不可以呢﹖

話時話﹐Cream是何許人﹐幾正喎﹗

Early and/or forced marriages subject girls to systematic rape. It also prevents them from continuing further education and leads to several health hazards, which contribute to the high maternal mortality rate in some countries.

我相信問題係呢本雜誌一向以及今次有煽動他人將此女星當作性商品之嫌. 不過, 如果她不是為這本雜誌拍照呢? 又或者, 她真的愛這種打扮, 又如何? 何況撇開年齡, 這種打扮周圍都是......

奇怪喎!!!!!!!!!

仲以為呢篇文post出咗黎實大把人"小"呢單嘢!!!!!!!

..........................

以女性覺度黎睇............呢個係.....意淫!!!!!
( 其實....其實...都有少少...正..)

我記得細個果陣, 當社會仲係將"淫"既界線定為"露"與"不露"時 (而家都好似仲係..), 有人認為"不露而淫"係高境界既!!!

所以....我唔知點講....

因為, 係技術上, 淫真係好難界定!!!!

Probably you don't realize, but the practice of using underage model is common. As long as it is not pornography, it is allowed.

But then some idiots extended it to early marriage, that is just plain stupid.

You may dislike this cover, but unless you could prove that this girl is being forced to take those photos, it is still allowed, however distasteful you find this.

　　Fred兄已經寫明這件事情嚴重性在於未成年少女索涉入性之中。問題不是在於她是否被迫，而是以她的年齡是否有能力理解和處理性及其帶來的後果。
　　大家可能覺得這是和森小事件一樣的「小題大造」。「？因為好似d野，又唔知是什麼？」，就正如森小的選舉題目用上一個「想」字。看似無傷大雅，想多了則是你自己意淫。但相信每一個看到這些選舉題目﹑和封面的人中，總有不少因而引起其對性的幻想。而相信雜誌方面和該名女藝人的家長亦早知道事情會這樣發展，這都沒有問題嗎？！
　　如果大家覺得生理成熟但未成年，甚至未滿十六歲的少女發生性行為都沒有問題。那香港及世界各地保障兒童免受性侵害的法例又立足於甚麼道理之上？如果大家仍然想說，「沒有人強迫她去拍」﹑「沒有人真正和她發生性行為」﹑「封面﹑內容均無直接倡導人去對她有性幻想」，或者你們應該去信立法會議員要戈十求在「衰十一」的條文上加上相方同意便可逍遙法外的部份，並且要求廢除淫褻及不雅物品條例。

至少, 與未成年男子做愛, 女性(無論十六歲與否)又為何無責任?

討論 不等於推倒重來, 而是通過討論, 令各界更明白一條條例合理與否, 其實亦有可能強化我們對條例的支持.

　　其實我也不贊成簡單地以一個歲數去決定和心智成熟度有限的女性發生性行為的合理性。是否合理成該從該少女對性的意義及其後果的了解來判斷。十八或者十六只是由於難以就此作清晰量度而定下的底線。
　　一個十四歲的「少女」有否足夠成熟的心智？在我而言言個問題的答案十分明顯。故此我才舉出那些條例，指出此事的嚴重性。一個十四歲少女被當作性幻想對象和一個成年女星受到同等待遇有否分別，不應是從她是否自願及曝露程度是否相同而判斷的。

http://espresso.mocasting.com/p/63391

魔鬼在細節中

When we talk about history, we must understand the concept of childhood is not knwon until industrial era. Teens marriage happens not because of short live span, but the reality is parents at that era know very little about childhood. Children are simply smaller men. The difference is physical but not physiological. Eastern world know little about Physiology and child/teens labour is common 50 years ago even in Hongkong.

Childhood lack capacity to differiate what is naughty and what is evil. We have a preassumption that a child under age of 14 is incapable to commit crime. Teens should have this capacity but still, in practice, tends to err more often than adults (refer to sexual assault election). That's why we have specific correctional services aimed for teens.

[Added later]
What children and teens lack is experience. Setup a rose garden for children to prevent from getting adult world experience does not help children to learn. The correct comparsion, is again on driving. First year driver is limited to access some dangerous act and fatal spots. Doing dangerous act in the first year license could void that license. However, it would be equally meaningless to ban all new drivers completely from driving even in safe roads.

Th current line of "dangerous spots" for children are namely, sex, cigar and band-3 film. There are also other reactive restriction like very hard to get loan, get access to child arcane center, etc. These restriction are "reactive" because there is no intention to constraint children. That laws actually constraint adults, making children never liable to debt and hence no one would lend money to children and expect to get the money back.

I fell I should say something on a comment suggesting "erotic text" should be regarded as "erotic" and hence should be controlled.

http://sidekick.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=184390

Erotic is a viusalization terms. It is a sex display. Erotic text is not a sex display. Control of erotic text is interference to freedom of expression. It prevents the possibly of public *discussion* of sex imgaination and fantasy. Extension of erotic to text is definitely a breach of Hongkong Bill of Rights, and very danagerous.

Application of erotic text (e.g. "漏奶") to real person (not erotic fiction in the old days) is a public insult. Public insult should be deal similarly as libel. It is a private dispute and there is no role for civil society or public agencies (except private law and courts of private law). I must warn against the arrogance and violence of civil society and abuse of public agencies (except legalisation said later). There are much issue can be deal within private law and legalisation of private law, and it should not be dealt publicly nor even dealt on internet.

Reference:

性幻想需要空間
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=117311&group_id=219

最想非禮
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=119321&group_id=126

香港仔公國：致黃世澤先生的公開信
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=123280&group_id=22
(My question is, why this issue not deal privately and deal by private law? Same issue!)

席陽有冇犯罪我唔知, 但香港記者的水平操守, 自絕對懷疑!! 將收費廣告當作時事新聞報導已是長久以來的事實!以記者身份收集他人資料而非作報導用途, 是否違法呢!!??
傳媒, 政客的智慧, 我簡直感驚訝!! 名咀, 公子, 才子從來沒有對事作任何改善, 但已做成神一樣而神聖不可犯!!
議員政客, 理應是代言人, 但就不可報以反對言論!!
網絡媒體, 壟斷資訊自由, 強要當上中間人角式而收費是商業行違, 但以利用中間人角式而獲得的資訊, 作出誤導及心理戰, 從而使受訊人改變行為, 令中間人獲取利益, 又是否合法呢!!??

所有所有都有一個簡單衡量方法, 就係(己所不欲, 勿施於人!!)o

如強要以歪理寬己簿人, 理由祗有一個, 你的價值比任何人都高!!!!