Masturbation on cam.. please help!

---

Ok, im 21, and i love masturbating on my webcam. but... i was wondering. since im over 18, is illegal for a girl under 18 to watch me jack off. i dont wanna get in trouble with the law. so ive been just wondering this.

My understanding is that yes, it is.

I think they would call it indecent exposure to a minor and I agree that it is not only improper, but also probably illegal. Stay away!

I'm sure there are folks out there who will tell you they are under 18 and see if you expose yourself.. if you do, they will probably record the session and report you.

i dont think it's wise... i think i seen men get arrest for just sending a pic of their junk to underage girls?!

Agreed. Just look at what is going on right now with Congressman Weiner.

I would say that it goes against social convention and likely existing laws. Ask for their age; if it is anything under 18 then end the session. Practice some common since also, I know that if a 15 or 17 year old lies it can be hard to tell, but if you see a 12 yo or something you know shes to young regardless of what she says. Better safe than sorry. You may want to restrict yourself to cam4 or something also.

As for the lying, i'm pretty sure that legally a sting operation is going to be done by someone of legal age and they will likely be fishing by presenting themselves as younger, not the other way around. So if someone tells you that they are 18 they either are or they are just looking for fun.

Right, guys.And in the year 2887, a time when social norms and laws regarding "underage sex" and "child molestation" are different than what they are today and when it is "legal" for a 21-year-old to have a 15/16-year-old to watch him stimulate himself, high-school students are learning about some law in the year 2011 that makes it illegal for people over 18 to have any form of sexual contact with people under. They then look at one another and then wonder to themselves, "......What the hell was the big deal back then?" The same way many to most now-a-days wonder what the hell the big deal was back then with inter-racial dating and using one's left hand to right...sighs Well, giving credit where credit is due, at least you guys are being cool-headed and rational about it, unlike certain people I've seen/read who seem ready to cry "PEDOPHILE!!" at the mere mention of an adult and a teenager together. Don't even care to learn what the two are actually doing, how they are related to each other or if they're even having or going to have sexual contact; the instant fact that one of them is over the age of 18 (which, for a reminder, mind you, is a governmental construct) is enough for this guy to be a "suspected predator" or a "potential pervert."Just remember guys, people's attitudes on things like these have changed more than 1000 times in history. What you've been taught to be illegal (not to mention what you now know to be a "pervert") is not permanent on history's timeline. Just some food for thought. p. s. My intentions are not to encourage people to break the law. (Nor do I condone rape, "child molestation," or any other form of physically violent sexual harassment for anyone.) Not at all. Simply to encourage thinking outside the box.

rolling eyesGovernmental construct = the law. Break it and you'll probably go to jail.And as much as some might hate the very thought of laws, there's good reason for a lot of them. This is one of them. Laws against interracial relationships were stupid. No one's arguing that. But it doesn't make every other law concerning sexual conduct stupid. Most of the laws that have changed over the years have to do with sexual conduct between consenting adults. Kids aren't adults. They aren't capable of consenting to sexual conduct with full knowledge. So they're protected. I, for one, am glad.

Originally Posted By: damienrolling eyesGovernmental construct = the law. Break it and you'll probably go to jail.Did I not in fact acknowledge this through implication already? So then, what's your point?As for the rest of your post - Thing of it is, Damien, people back then didn't think that punishing the left-handers or the black folks for marrying caucasians were stupid. They had a "very good reason' why these laws were good. (Otherwise, they wouldn't have those laws in place to begin with, right?) The same way we have a "very good reason" why there should be an "age of consent" and an "age of majority" and why (all) "adults" who have sex with "children" (17-year-old is a "child"? Do I hear confuzzlement/laughter from your great-great-great-great-great-great-great grand children and nieces and nephews of 14-18 years of age? ) should be punished.People who grew up during that time could not imagine/think of laws and a social world of a different kind beyond the social norms and ideas that were instilled in them during that time. That is why they didn't think of banning writing with the left hand, marrying "inter-racially" and what other "good laws" had they back then as "stupid." That goes for society of the present as well. No matter what you say, because the world of laws are constantly changing and will continue to remain that way for as long as humanity exists, humanistically innocent folk who many have been hurt by the law will eventually reveal their "innocence", like Galileo's "innocence" was eventually revealed, whether you like it or not; rolling your eyes is not going to help you either.I know that people hate blunt messages like these, and I will probably get a lot of hate from it; some are so angry and ready to brand me a "pedophile" or "pedophile-enabler", I'm sure. And, I'm sorry that I had to be the bearer of such putrid and in-your-face horrible news as ^^^this. However, it will not change the fact of humanity that is being put forth here in this post one single bit.

Originally Posted By: AC25

Originally Posted By: damien

**rolling eyes**

Governmental construct = the law. Break it and you'll probably go to jail.

Did I not in fact acknowledge this through implication already? So then, what's your point?
Maybe you did. Quite possibly right before you ignored the rest of my post while continuing to respond to it.

What you're basically saying is that a law or moral code is nonsensical by virtue of age. So you think any law or moral code that's, let's say 100 years or older is absurd. That's absurd. You have to look at the law or moral code according to it's own merits or lack thereof. A law against left-handed people is an absurd law, whether it's 100 years old or a week old. A law acknowledging that children might not be capable of consenting to sexual activity with the understanding of an adult is valid, regardless of how old it is. You may not like the law, but you can't summarily dismiss any law based merely on the fact that it's been the law for ages. Seriously, at what point to you say "murder shouldn't be illegal because it's a law from centuries ago, a time when they couldn't imagine a society beyond their own".

This crap you're spouting is the reason we have to teach our children to protect themselves from strangers and the reason I've spent so much time trying to help a teenager or young adult put back the pieces of a shattered life.
_________________________

Ah, you responded yet again. Wish I was here sooner to read it when it was fresh. Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: AC25 Originally Posted By: damienrolling eyesGovernmental construct = the law. Break it and you'll probably go to jail.Did I not in fact acknowledge this through implication already? So then, what's your point?Maybe you did. Quite possibly right before you ignored the rest of my post while continuing to respond to it.No. I simply chose not to respond to the specificality of your message, because nothing you brought up has counter-argued the driven-home point that I had made. They all simply fall under my very own point.And, what you said now in your most current response continues to fall short of a sufficient counter-response. I never said that all laws of the past are bad; in fact, I don't recall even ever being on the tangent in regards to "bad".To put my previous posts in the simplest paraphrase that even you would probably understand, laws are good to have, but they don't always (keyword) work well.However, none of that is something I haven't already mention. I seem to note that I'm not going to get anywhere with you and decide I won't waste much more time with my rhetoric. If you don't get it by now, I should assume you won't for a long time, if ever at all.  Quote:Seriously, at what point to you say "murder shouldn't be illegal because it's a law from centuries ago, a time when they couldn't imagine a society beyond their own". HA! I absolutely knew the murder card was going to be played eventually. It was just a matter of time.I can go into yet another rebuttal, this one about relating your logic ^^^ with the equating of gay sex with threat of population On the other hand, I already advised myself to not go any further with you. (Then again, if you have legal qualms (or outright objection against) gay sex, then I guess that one wouldn't have worked anyways :P)By the way, murder has been legally justified before, spanding both geographically and chronologically. See? Quote:This crap you're spouting is the reason we have to teach our children to protect themselves from strangers and the reason I've spent so much time trying to help a teenager or young adult put back the pieces of a shattered life.And the fact that you are crying fire to a house that is not burning to the ground is specifically why I spend so much time developing an argument to discredit it and why I chose to speak here in the first place. And, it will be a reason why I, in the future, would have to console those adults, especially young pre-adults, who have been unfairly and cruelly hurt by pedophile laws.On a side note, MY children will learn the difference between "child predator" and consensual sex. I too will teach them that there are people out there out to prey on and expose children and will teach them how to protect themselves from sexually predatory behaviour.I respect you for your work to protect children and teens against the same.

Originally Posted By: AC25 I seem to note that I'm not going to get anywhere with you and decide I won't waste much more time with my rhetoric.Oh...is that what you're calling it. Really?

Nice attempt at dodging my post.

Sorry, but that's basically all it merits.

^^^Surely, coming from a person who is meekly capable of seeing merit in developed thoughts moreso than his own and, therefore, should have thought twice (edit - excuse me, 5 to 10 times) before responding in the first place?Or did you simply give up and not even read my post altogether?

Originally Posted By: AC25^^^Surely, coming from a person who is meekly capable of seeing merit in developed thoughts moreso than his own and, therefore, should have thought twice (edit - excuse me, 5 to 10 times) before responding in the first place?I have no idea what this means... Quote:Or did you simply give up and not even read my post altogether? ...but the point is that your post indicated to me an attempt to sound educated and rational, but was basically a mess. Not much there to respond to, really, so why try? Plus fact, I know full well that continued discussion wouldn't end in agreement. So in my effort to not argue needlessly or encourage others to do so, coupled with my confusion as to what is really there to respond to, I opted to not respond.Make sense?

when you go to prison i hope you get cut to bits.

I honestly don't think that he is here to read this, jonny, considering that the OP was posted years back and that it was his only post from on here. Nor am I going to even begin asking you. I will simply opt out before "it" begins.Jolly day.

let's try to play nice guys!