• Child pornography | What is classed as child porn?
    51 replies, posted
Before I start I want to make it clear that this isn't a debate about whether child porn should be legal or not, just a debate to see what is classed as child porn/the grey zone of child porn. I was talking with a friend earlier about child porn and we both agreed that child porn has a very large grey zone, personally I believe a child naked (of any age) is not actually child porn, I suppose porn is objective and anything can be porn for somebody if they were 'into' that sort of thing but a naked child is something people see daily, I used to babysit children of all ages (mostly 5-10 year olds) when I was younger like most other teenagers have and I used to see naked children all the time and I doubt anyone would class that as child pornography, there are also pictures known to be 'artistic' of naked children (picture of Phan Thi Kim Phuc) and yet if someone was to photograph a naked child whether it be innocent in intentions or not viewing that picture is likely classed as child porn by many. I think a naked child is fine and is something we're accustomed to, although pictures of people sexually abusing children I'd definitely call child porn and viewing it intentionally for sexual purposes a crime. So my main debate question is, when does takes picture of children, naked or not actually [i]become[/i] child porn?
If the child is engaged in sexual activity then yeah, I think it'd be child porn by then.
I don't think anyone can disagree with that as it's clearly wrong on many levels, although I believe that masterbating to a picture of a child naked or otherwise (but not engaged in sexual activity) shouldn't be illegal, it's not morally correct in my opinion but if someone wanted to, I believe it should be legal for them to do so, I envision a lot of disagreeing on that one. And I do understand that even though 'enjoying' child porn is a victimless crime, the act of taking pictures in an intentionally sexual way is definitely not victimless.
Masturbating to it makes it sexualised though (if they aren't engaged in any sexual act)
If it's media (images, video etc) that is created for the intent of sexualism, then it is child porn. That's what I think at least.
If the image or video depicts a child being engaged in sexual acts or positions then it is child pornography. If the child belongs to a nudist community then it is not UNLESS if the child is again, engaging in sexual acts or position.
What about a naked picture of a child on the internet not engaging in sexual acts?
IN my opinion, child porn is classed as a person who looks young, (1(oh my fucking god i hope that doesn't exist) to 12 years old) although, i think porn of pubescent or post-pubescent porn is different. If a child is naked, it does not necessarily make it porn, but a child is being penetrated or forced to preform a sexual act on another, regardless of the second parties age, i think that is child porn.
for me, it is a relative term I would say that porn does not constitute as child porn if the viewer is near the same age.
I'd say it's only porn if the kid is actually doing something sexual. Just walking around or something nude wouldn't be considered Child Porn in my book. It's a pretty dumb term though, because if a 17 year old filmed herself masturbating, it'd still be considered child porn.
If pictures of naked children are child porn, my parents would be arrested since they have pictures of me. So we can pretty much say that that isn't child porn, since the pictures aren't sexually explicit, and because of the fact, that well, it was taken simply because of the fact that it was a picture of me as a child. That becomes a greyzone when you find a man who has tons of pictures like that on his computer, of children he doesn't know personally. The pictures might not be any different than the ones my parents have got, but they're officially saved because of the nudity, and not because it's a family picture. Is it child pornography? The man (or woman for that matter) obviously saved them because (s)he gets aroused from them, so in [i]his[/i] mind they're porn, but in a different context it wouldn't be viewed as such. It'd be creepy nonetheless, but the man didn't really do anything illegal, did he? Then my parents should be arrested as well, along with most other parents.
If the age of the naked youth/child is the same as the age of thechild/youth that watches the naked image, naked or not, would not make it children pornography in the same way. Why? Probably going to lean down on my minds of pedophilia on this one, they are the same age, thus they don't see themselves as children in the same way as an adult do.
What is child pornography? Well, the same as pornography, except with children. So then the question(s) would be; what is pornography? And what is a child? It is no doubt a hard question to answer anyways. Some pictures can be both child pornography and not at the same time. If one person has it [I](for example a mother)[/I], it's fine, but if it's someone else [I](bearded man)[/I] then it can be. It also seems to vaguely have something to do with context. For example if you have an innocent picture of a child within a collection of legal pornography, that picture might just be called child pornography. Or if the image is accompanied by sexually explicit text. And I don't think nudity is any really good indicator either... If you just say that everything with nudity is pornography, then there's a lot of sexually suggestive stuff which can be a lot more explicit which [I]don't[/I] have nudity. [I] - Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.[/I] That is wikipedia's definition of pornography. But clearly it's not that simple. What is "explicit portrayal"? What is "sexual subject matter"? And then apperantly it has to be for the purpose of sexual arousal. How the hell do you tell what the purpose of a picture or video is? Whether something is child pornography or not seems to be in the hands of judges. It is very ambiguous and subjective, and the grey zone is huge.
I figure the intent of the use of the image is what would define the material. The original creation of the image may be different, but any pervert can manipulate that into something different.
Any form of media that sexulises children is child porn in my eyes
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32902293]Masturbating to it makes it sexualised though (if they aren't engaged in any sexual act)[/QUOTE] No, that makes it seems like it should be illegal for a pedophile to do that. While I don't support pedophiles nor do I feel pitty for them, they aren't doing any harm by masturbating to a picture of a naked child that is not engaged in sexual activity. No one is affected. Also, the act of masturbating to child porn is not illegal, being in possession of it is.
Lawfully, child porn is described as an image/video of someone under the age of consent engaged in a sexual or lewd activity. I think that this is a pretty good description. Now, if they're within a couple years of your age, that shouldn't be classified as CP.
Prosecutors have stopped charging middle school aged kids who are in possession of photos (they still have the "Talk" with them and suspend them from their schools, but they've backed off of the idea of making them register as a sex offender as of late. But they've recognized that people are usually always interested in other people their own age -- and that it's not efficient to target them as potential criminals.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32905582]Lawfully, child porn is described as an image/video of someone under the age of consent engaged in a sexual or lewd activity. I think that this is a pretty good description. Now, if they're within a couple years of your age, that shouldn't be classified as CP.[/QUOTE]Umm, if you're underage it doesn't mean CP suddenly turns into not CP.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32902293]Masturbating to it makes it sexualised though (if they aren't engaged in any sexual act)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=General Omega;32904377]I figure the intent of the use of the image is what would define the material.[/QUOTE] I think this is a bad way to look at it. Basically it means that something can be a crime for one person but not for another. If a pedophile has innocent pictures of children and masturbates to them, that doesn't make the pictures child pornography. You can find it disturbing and wrong all you want, but saying that the act of masturbating to the pictures make them child pornography is outrageous. Either it is or it is not, and what you do with the picture shouldn't have anything to do with it. But what you are saying is actually somewhat in use. A person could very likely be charged with child pornography for posessing completely innocent pictures of children, if it was found out that he found them sexually attractive or that he masturbated to the pictures. I think it's a fucked up way to go about it, but it does happen.
what if you're video taping your kid taking his first bath or being toilet trained
[QUOTE=Face Melter;32906693]what if you're video taping your kid taking his first bath or being toilet trained[/QUOTE] I see this on AFV all the fucking time and I question at what age does it become CP?
Ever heard of the copine scale OP?
Nevermind, if it's not sexual then whatever.
Let's just say, for example, an under-age person makes a video or photo of themselves in a sexual act, and spreads it all over the internet of their own volition. What legal action should be taken?
When kids do sexualized acts, or try to act as "sex objects"*. On the beach there are sometimes kids from like 1-6 years old naked running around on the beach. *Don't know the correct word for it.
This is sort of going off topic, but people say child porn is a big problem on the internet and it's becoming more frequent, but I see weird masochism shit more then anything else. Back on topic, an underage girl in a picture doing anything would probably be classified as child pornography. I say this, because a teacher in my school got fired for having a picture of a student on his desktop, and they classified it as pornographic material.
If one faps to it, that shalt be considered porn.
[QUOTE=aurum481;32911472]If one faps to it, that shalt be considered porn.[/QUOTE] If that is true, then you can magically turn any picture into porn by fapping to it, and any picture with a child in it, into child pornography. Just by fapping to it.
[QUOTE=aurum481;32911472]If one faps to it, that shalt be considered porn.[/QUOTE] As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said (the gist of it anyway), "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.