1. Post #1
    Headphone doctor
    David Tennant's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,449 Posts
    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 become child porn?

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    Samiam22's Avatar
    January 2008
    6,952 Posts
    If the child is engaged in sexual activity then yeah, I think it'd be child porn by then.

  3. Post #3
    Headphone doctor
    David Tennant's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,449 Posts
    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.

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,499 Posts
    Masturbating to it makes it sexualised though (if they aren't engaged in any sexual act)

  5. Post #5
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,894 Posts
    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.

  6. Post #6
    I do it all
    fruxodaily's Avatar
    November 2010
    13,216 Posts
    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.

  7. Post #7
    Headphone doctor
    David Tennant's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,449 Posts
    What about a naked picture of a child on the internet not engaging in sexual acts?

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    The Aussie's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,324 Posts
    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.

  9. Post #9
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    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.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    Second-gear-of-mgear's Avatar
    June 2009
    6,054 Posts
    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.

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,362 Posts
    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 his 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.

  12. Post #12
    I <3 OTTERS~
    Dennab
    July 2011
    9,935 Posts
    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.

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2005
    1,397 Posts
    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 (for example a mother), it's fine, but if it's someone else (bearded man) 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 don't have nudity.


    - Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.


    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.

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    General Omega's Avatar
    January 2009
    2,400 Posts
    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.

  15. Post #15
    Go Shuya! You can do it Shuya!
    redback3's Avatar
    December 2005
    5,411 Posts
    Any form of media that sexulises children is child porn in my eyes

  16. Post #16
    SoaringScout's Avatar
    February 2010
    6,732 Posts
    Masturbating to it makes it sexualised though (if they aren't engaged in any sexual act)
    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.

  17. Post #17
    rosar0980's Avatar
    March 2010
    1,493 Posts
    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.

  18. Post #18
    Gold Member
    Stick it in her pooper's Avatar
    April 2009
    828 Posts
    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.

  19. Post #19
    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.
    Umm, if you're underage it doesn't mean CP suddenly turns into not CP.

  20. Post #20
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2005
    1,397 Posts
    Masturbating to it makes it sexualised though (if they aren't engaged in any sexual act)
    I figure the intent of the use of the image is what would define the material.
    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.

  21. Post #21
    Face Melter's Avatar
    February 2010
    1,011 Posts
    what if you're video taping your kid taking his first bath or being toilet trained

  22. Post #22
    Gold Member
    silentjubjub's Avatar
    October 2007
    7,437 Posts
    what if you're video taping your kid taking his first bath or being toilet trained
    I see this on AFV all the fucking time and I question at what age does it become CP?

  23. Post #23
    POWA KILLERDeux's Avatar
    August 2009
    1,250 Posts
    Ever heard of the copine scale OP?

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    silentjubjub's Avatar
    October 2007
    7,437 Posts
    Nevermind, if it's not sexual then whatever.

  25. Post #25
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    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?

  26. Post #26
    The Mad Scientist
    Daniellynet's Avatar
    September 2008
    20,455 Posts
    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.

  27. Post #27
    Divinity Roleplay
    TheDivinity's Avatar
    August 2011
    517 Posts
    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.

  28. Post #28
    aurum481's Avatar
    November 2008
    2,386 Posts
    If one faps to it, that shalt be considered porn.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2005
    1,397 Posts
    If one faps to it, that shalt be considered porn.
    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.

  30. Post #30
    Canuhearmenow's Avatar
    June 2011
    1,470 Posts
    If one faps to it, that shalt be considered porn.
    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."

  31. Post #31
    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.
    Because masochistic shit is legal.
    TORnet has gigabytes of CP. See the thread in the news where anon hacked a cp site with over 100gb of data.
    It's just that to host CP on the surface web you have to be a really brave motherfucker.

  32. Post #32
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,499 Posts
    What about a naked picture of a child on the internet not engaging in sexual acts?
    Still counts if it is used in any sexual connotation i.e: for masturbation purposes. Trying to qualify it as not pornography ignores the fact that it still requires a child to be exploited.

  33. Post #33
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    Still counts if it is used in any sexual connotation i.e: for masturbation purposes. Trying to qualify it as not pornography ignores the fact that it still requires a child to be exploited.
    A nude picture of a child simply existing doesn't require exploitation of said child. Parents have baby photos of their kids in which they are quite often nude, so that renders that argument legally pointless. If you want to determine it based on 'whether or not you masturbate to it', that's also a pointless argument because it doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.

    Is an image of a naked woman not porn as long as no one masturbates to it? Is a video of two people having sex not porn if no one masturbates to it? By your logic, a children's clothing ad can be child porn as long as someone masturbates to it.

    Basically what I'm saying is that your idea of what is and is not child porn would be impossible to put into law.

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    Spacewolf's Avatar
    January 2006
    7,789 Posts
    There's definitely more of a grey area than governments today allow, like baby pictures, and, more controversially, sexting.

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    gamefreek76's Avatar
    October 2005
    7,239 Posts
    I don't think children engaging in sexual activity is inherently wrong.
    Children reach sexual maturity at 11-15 years old.

    However, exploiting children, especially sexual exploitation, is very very wrong.
    So yes, I am strongly against child pornography.

    I am not, however, against sexting and stupid shit teens do to get themselves in trouble. Kids will be kids and it's a part of growing up.

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,499 Posts
    A nude picture of a child simply existing doesn't require exploitation of said child. Parents have baby photos of their kids in which they are quite often nude, so that renders that argument legally pointless. If you want to determine it based on 'whether or not you masturbate to it', that's also a pointless argument because it doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.

    Is an image of a naked woman not porn as long as no one masturbates to it? Is a video of two people having sex not porn if no one masturbates to it? By your logic, a children's clothing ad can be child porn as long as someone masturbates to it.

    Basically what I'm saying is that your idea of what is and is not child porn would be impossible to put into law.
    I knew someone would come along and talk about family photos or even educational ones. Like you said, it is impossible to have a 100% clear cut definition, but possessing images of naked children unrelated to you is pretty damning (unless of course they are for a legitimate educational purpose). If we are talking in terms of photos expressly produced for the purpose of the child's nakedness then it does require a degree of exploitation. I never intended to imply it would be anything but a case by case basis.

    Further I may not have clarified my logic enough, as demonstrated by your rightful refutation. There needs to be criteria to be checked off before it becomes a case of child pornography, does it represent a child in a suggestive manner? was it produced for sexual gratification? if not, is it being illegitimately used for sexual gratification? (this of course applies to child pornography, not adult pornography which is irrelevant) if you don't have either of those you don't have child pornography. This of course delves into the the very grey area of jailbait and 'clothed' pictures, which furthers supports the prosecution being on a case by case basis.

  37. Post #37
    In my opinion it should be classified as child pornography if it depicts a real child is being sexually exploited in some way i.e. by someone far more sexually mature than themselves.

    Whether a child is not being physically harmed is irrelevant because the child does not have the necessary understanding to give meaningful consent to the act, but nudity alone should not constitute child pornography.

  38. Post #38
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    Nude photos are fine, even ones that are intended to look sexual. People tend to agree with this matter when it comes to teenagers. The sexual part doesn't really apply to younger kids as they aren't likely to act in a way that would be considered sexual without coercion or force, both of which should be punishable in instances not relating to homesteading. For example, Forcing a child to take a bath is acceptable as it is apart of taking care of the child. It is fine for the homesteader to take a picture of the child naked in the tub, otherwise the homesteader can't take a picture of the child at all. Now if for some reason most people believe the photo looked sexual, it would be fine as there was no force in matter. The photo should allowed to be sold, otherwise no photos of children should be allowed to be sold.

  39. Post #39
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    I knew someone would come along and talk about family photos or even educational ones. Like you said, it is impossible to have a 100% clear cut definition, but possessing images of naked children unrelated to you is pretty damning (unless of course they are for a legitimate educational purpose). If we are talking in terms of photos expressly produced for the purpose of the child's nakedness then it does require a degree of exploitation. I never intended to imply it would be anything but a case by case basis.

    Further I may not have clarified my logic enough, as demonstrated by your rightful refutation. There needs to be criteria to be checked off before it becomes a case of child pornography, does it represent a child in a suggestive manner? was it produced for sexual gratification? if not, is it being illegitimately used for sexual gratification? (this of course applies to child pornography, not adult pornography which is irrelevant) if you don't have either of those you don't have child pornography. This of course delves into the the very grey area of jailbait and 'clothed' pictures, which furthers supports the prosecution being on a case by case basis.
    9 out of 10 times I'm willing to bet it will end up a grey-filled legislative mess where someone has to make a moral judgment of the 'criminal', and frankly I don't think that's worth it.

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2005
    1,397 Posts
    I knew someone would come along and talk about family photos or even educational ones. Like you said, it is impossible to have a 100% clear cut definition, but possessing images of naked children unrelated to you is pretty damning (unless of course they are for a legitimate educational purpose). If we are talking in terms of photos expressly produced for the purpose of the child's nakedness then it does require a degree of exploitation. I never intended to imply it would be anything but a case by case basis.

    Further I may not have clarified my logic enough, as demonstrated by your rightful refutation. There needs to be criteria to be checked off before it becomes a case of child pornography, does it represent a child in a suggestive manner? was it produced for sexual gratification? if not, is it being illegitimately used for sexual gratification? (this of course applies to child pornography, not adult pornography which is irrelevant) if you don't have either of those you don't have child pornography. This of course delves into the the very grey area of jailbait and 'clothed' pictures, which furthers supports the prosecution being on a case by case basis.
    Bolded part is strange logic that he already pointed out. If it does not represent a child in a suggestive manner, or if it was not produced for sexual gratification, then it isn't child porn. Just because someone decides to use it for sexual gratification doesn't make the picture into child pornography.

    If that logic was applied in the law, then you would be allowed to have a picture of a child, but not allowed to masturbate to it: As soon as you did, you would have made it into child porn. Hell, whether something is "illegitimately used for sexual gratification" is also extremely vague. How would you tell? What if a person didn't masturbate to it, but rather just looked at it while having sexual thoughts?

    If you have an innocent picture of a child, you can do bloody anything you like to it and it will still just be an innocent picture of a child. You shouldn't be able to prosecute people for their intentions on having innocent pictures. You prosecute them based on what it is, not what they do with it.