Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » Child Pornography

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Child Pornography
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Playing off of an ongoing discussion in the ladies' room, I thought I'd open up the discussion about child pornography to a wider group.

The overall tone of the discussion in the ladies' room seems to indicate that most people in there feel that anything approaching child pornography -- when it involves actual children being submitted to actual physical acts -- is wrong. I don't think very many people on here would disagree with that.

However, there are other forms of expression -- some of which might constitute 'child pornography' in some people's minds -- that haven't really been discussed in the ladies' room.

For instance, if I want to write a story about, say, having sex with an eight-year-old, is that child pornography? How about if I paint a picture of a naked 13-year-old, and the only model I use for it is images in my brain? What if I take a picture of a 6-year-old sibling getting out of the bathtub (note: lots and lots of people have had trouble with the police after doing this sort of thing, and taking their film to be developed)? Finally, what if I own a CD on which there are lyrics about participating in a gang rape on a younger sister? (Check your Eminem CDs, people!)

Should these sorts of things fall under child pornography laws? Where do we draw the line?


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well I think u can rule out Eminem CDs quite quickly coz they rnt meant to be erotic (infact they meant to shock people). Therefore it is isnt pornography to start with. The same goes for the example of a child getting out of the bath. To many people it wouldnt even occur to them that it might be considered pornography. The 1 about making a naked picture from ure imagination is a bit harder to defend. If it is a crime it does not have a victim but might it possibly encourage people to commit crime? Ne studies in this area?
Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
phsygnosis
Activist
Member # 2226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for phsygnosis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would catogorize it under child pornography, if it was pitures. Pretty much any picture of a naked human being is pornography. Pornography isn't a bad word as some people may look at it as. Pornography is an art to some people and also a job. As for you having thoughts about it, I wouldn't call it pornography. Some people have different things that get them arroused but I think that turning to a child is just going to far. That is my personal thought though. Others may think it is perfectly fine. What ever floats your boat!

-Phsygnosis


Posts: 88 | From: Canton, Ohio, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For the record, the United States legal classification on Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, under Title 18, is as follows:

Sec. 2251. Sexual exploitation of children

* (a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

* (b) Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor who knowingly permits such minor to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished as provided under subsection (d) of this section, if such parent, legal guardian, or person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

* (c)
* (1) Any person who, in a circumstance described in paragraph (2), knowingly makes, prints, or publishes, or causes to be made, printed, or published, any notice or advertisement seeking or offering -
* (A) to receive, exchange, buy, produce, display, distribute, or reproduce, any visual depiction, if the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct; or
* (B) participation in any act of sexually explicit conduct by or
with any minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; shall be punished as provided under subsection (d).

* (2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that -
* (A) such person knows or has reason to know that such notice or advertisement will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed; or
* (B) such notice or advertisement is transported in interstate
or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed.


* (d) Any individual who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years, and [1] both, but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years, but if such person has 2 or more prior convictions under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 30 years nor more than life. Any organization that violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title. Whoever, in the course of an offense under this section, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Pertinent definitions relating to the content of that section are as follows:

* (1) ''minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;

* (2) ''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -
* (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
* (B) bestiality;
* (C) masturbation;
* (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
* (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
any person;


* (3) ''producing'' means producing, directing, manufacturing,
issuing, publishing, or advertising;

* (4) ''organization'' means a person other than an individual;

* (5) ''visual depiction'' includes undeveloped film and
videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic
means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

* (6) ''computer'' has the meaning given that term in section
1030 of this title;

* (7) ''custody or control'' includes temporary supervision over
or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally
obtained;

* (8) ''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or
computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by
electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit
conduct, where -
* (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
* (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
* (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or
modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually explicit conduct; or
* (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented,
described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the
impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(9) ''identifiable minor'' -
* (A) means a person -
* (i)
* (I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was
created, adapted, or modified; or
* (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting,
or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the
person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing
characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other
recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual
identity of the identifiable minor.

(You can find aa copy of Title 18 and other related legal information here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html)

Child pornography is more than simply photographs, and phsygnosis, any depiction of a nude body also is not technically ponography, by defintion.

And I have to very strongly rally against the notion that this issue is as simple as "whatever floats someones boat." While that might work when considering a viewer or reader SOLELY, it does not work when in the course of some material (and certainly that of commerical sexual material created using children) creating the material in and of itself is sexually exploitative and nonconsentual, and most certainly in the case of a minor who does not have legal rights on their own, nor the ability to GIVE consent.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

"If you're a bird, be an early early bird --
But if you're a worm, sleep late." - Shel Silverstein


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To say that because something isn't meant to be erotic, it isn't pornography doesn't really make sense to me.
There was a film that ran recently in theatres in Montreal called 'Baise Moi'. The title, translated to English, was 'Rape Me'. It was from France, and it featured lots of killings and hard core sex scenes, some of which I believe were rape scenes. Now, most people might not find scenes like those really erotic, but some others might. I think that you might say 'erotic' is in the eye of the beholder.
Most people seemed to feel that this film was simply made to shock people, but some surely went to see it simply in hopes of getting a rise out of it.

[This message has been edited by Dzuunmod (edited 01-04-2001).]


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes I suppose thats a point but surely whether it is meant to be erotic comes into the equation somewhere. Oh and i didnt completely get that law. Am I right in saying that the law concentrated on the abuse of minors. Does that mean that erotic pictures of young people that do not involve ne exploitation of them is technically legal? And if not should it be?
Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For the point of the law, throw away the term erotic.

Whether or not something is "erotic" (in other words, sexually arousing) is in the eye of the beholder and that has zippo to do with legalities. It DOESN'T come into the equation anywhere legally. Not at all.

When it comes to pornography and child pornography in a legal milieu, what is at play is sexual explicitness. In other words, the depiction of a sexual act (which includes the acts defined above: actual or simulated sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
any person ) or of genitalia.

Because minors do NOT have the legal right to consent to those acts and adults cannot legally invite or coerce minors into performing those acts for any reason, depiction/performance of them IS exploitation in and of itself.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

"If you're a bird, be an early early bird --
But if you're a worm, sleep late." - Shel Silverstein


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kechara
Neophyte
Member # 2259

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kechara     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, on the user/viewer/reader end, it really is "what floats your boat" (as long as the who fantasy/reality boundary remains clear of course). On the production end of things... Well, yes, video and photgraphs are out. But what about written material? what if no children were involved in making it?
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, Kechara, it really is NOT, since purchasing, endorsing distributing or possessing child pornography is ALSO illegal.
Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Voostra
Neophyte
Member # 2049

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Voostra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm.. The one about taking the picture of a id getting out of a bathtub maybe seems a little grayline to me. I know I have friends whose baby pictures I've seen, and they of the two of them (boy/girl twins) in a bathtub- - yes.. naked. but only like 2 or 3. Also, I saw a friend's picture calendar the other day that was really pretty in a way. It was a black and white one, and many of the pictures had babies in them (Prolly under 1 I would guess). Pictures like just a pair of hands holding a baby, but the baby was o small the the hands were holding the whole baby.. (if that makes sense... the hands were as long as the baby...) And although it did not show any genetalia of anything throughout the whole poster (they were covered in some way by the composition) all the people were naked. In some way though, the pictures were very beautiful, and in kinda sexy in a way though that may just be me). Would that be child porn.. By the definition (at least for me) it would be, in that is it imagery that evokes a sexual or erotic response, but somehow it seems different to me. Hard to explain.. I completely agree that what might be described as 'hardcore' child porn is totally wrong, but something like the poster, which is tending towardswhat might be described as more artistic maybe is not... What do you guys think?
Posts: 32 | From: Canada | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Again, legally, pornography is not defined by what someone sees it as, or if it evokes an erotic response in the viewer. If that were the case, most porn wouldn't be porn at all, because I tell ya, most pornography doesn't evoke anything in me.

The legal definitions are above in this post. Right there.


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Again, I suppose that what I'm interested in here, personally, is what people think the law ought to be.

I mean if someone thinks that, the things that I described in the initial post should be illegal, then lots of thoughts are going to have to be censored. I didn't state it in my posts, but, personally, I think that none of the things I described in the first post should be illegal.

And, I do have to quibble wth you on one point, Miz Scarlet: I think that it does matter what is in the mind of the person who first produces the pornography. Like, if I kill someone by accidentally pushing them off of a balcony, when I, say, open a door, that is a whole other situation from if I shoot someone intentionally with a gun. Similarly, wouldn't it matter, at all, if I wasn't intending to exploit my children, or create any type of child pornography when I, say, took that photograph of the six-year-old getting out of the tub?

You need intent to commit a criminal act, don't you?


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the sad truth is, Dzuun, that you need intent --usually -- to be found guilty of a cmriminal act. I don't think intention has anything to do with comitting one.

In general, I think the laws are sound. By the legal defintion, a child getting out of a tub does NOT fall under child pornography, and even if it were sexually explicit, in order to support that accusation, they would also have to show that the person who created that matrieal intended it to be so, commercially distirbuted it in some way, and so forth.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

"If you're a bird, be an early early bird --
But if you're a worm, sleep late." - Shel Silverstein


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kechara
Neophyte
Member # 2259

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kechara     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Having read that law a bit mroe thorougly, I agree that a sexualy explicit story involving a minor would be illegal. But I was really speaking about what-I-think-is-right. and what the law will be when I'm empress of the world ;-).
Hmm.. regarding the current law... how on earth would it apply to certain kinds of sf/f erotica? how do you define "minor" in a fictional species?

Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beppie
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 94

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Beppie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's interesting about the fiction. I read a lot of fantasy, and in them it's not uncommon to have sex scenes involving people under the age of 18, but I certainly don't consider it child porn. Such scenes are depicted as part of the character development- to present all under 18 characters as asexual beings would just seem false. I've never seen outright pedophilia in these books portrayed as anything but wrong however. While someone might have sex at an age that wouldn't be permissible in America, or Australia for that matter in them, sex with culturally designated children in such novels is never depicted "on screen" as it were, and is also, in my experience, never depicted as anything but bad.
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bobolink
Activist
Member # 1386

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bobolink         Edit/Delete Post 
In 1978, The Ontario Film Review Board banned the film "Pretty Baby" from being exhibited in the province. Brooke Shields played a 12-year-old prostitute in a New Orleans brothel. It is one of the few films that has been banned in Ontario for the last 30 years. The reason is that it depicted a minor child in a sexual situation and that child was portrayed by an actor who was, herself, underage and unable to give legal consent to appear in the film.

On balance, I agreed with the Board's decision. It is interesting though, that the film has been broadcast in Ontario, The Film Review Board only has jurisdiction on theatrical exhibition and has no jurisdiction on broadcast or cable television.

------------------
All paper clips are born free, but they live in chains

[This message has been edited by Bobolink (edited 01-05-2001).]


Posts: 3442 | From: Stirling, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The Supreme Court of Canada recently handed down a decision about the right to posess child pornography in this country. You can read a bit about it here.

The gist of it is that people are not allowed to posess the stuff, so long as it doesn't involve real people and it is only for personal use -- not to be sold. It upheld the part about it being illegal for real pictures or videos to show illegal acts.

I think this is a solid ruling. It basically seems like as long as the activity of one person doesn't infringe on the rights of another, it's okay. I think that's a good rule to follow.


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ThisGuy
Activist
Member # 968

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ThisGuy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just out of curiousity, when you say "the law", why do you guys always think instantly it means United States law? ;p

Consider this:
The Australian government has recently been tryig to put up an appearance of cracking down on child sex tourists. Essentially, they are assisting a foreign government to bring to justice Australian citizens who committed offences on foreign soil.

Legalities aren't always black and white. Usually there's some way to argue your way out of something, or to cast a different light on events. Or even, as above, potentially to use the murkiness of international law and diplomacy to dodge proceedings.

More importantly, legalities vary from location to location, and the internet is a moderately global phenomenon.

There is no way this debate can realistically continue based solely on legalities; which is why I will concern myself with morality as I see it.

A few basic assumptions:
1. No individual has a right to harm or restrict the rights of another individual. This includes violence, coercion, etc.
2. A person who lacks the ability to protect themselves should be protected - to the fullest extent - by the community as a whole.

Now, it seems to me that the question asked relates to symbolism more than anything.
Writing a story about imagined deeds does not constitute cruelty to an individual child. It may lead to such cruelty, and it is repugnant to most people, but it is not cruelty or molestation in and of itself.

Technically, no harm is being done to another individual, so how is such material harmful?

I'd say things like that should be banned for a single reason - the sexual instincts of our species are incredibly strong. Ask Miz Scarlet how many "am I pregnant?" emails she gets each day, and you'll understand why.

If creation and proliferation of such fantasies is permitted, I'd be surprised if none of those involved didn't try to enact their ideas. The instinct to carry through such fantasies is very strong - particularly if it's combined with the prevailing "look after number one" attitude of our society.

I regard paedophilia as a sickness - on par with rape or murder. I despise anyone who could inflict that sort of horror upon another. But then, if I met someone who could be that cruel to a child...they probably wouldn't survive the meeting. The coroner would have a decent job putting them back together, too. ;p

How did I write so many words with such a big headache?

------------------
Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!


Posts: 915 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bobolink
Activist
Member # 1386

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bobolink         Edit/Delete Post 
This Guy, there is a logical fallacy to your arguement. If you equate paedophilia with murder, do you have any murder mystery books in your home? Have you ever read any? Have you ever read any material about war?

Aside from sex, human beings do seem to have a propensity to kill each other so we put up strong legal punishments for doing so. But should reading about killing be a crime?

At what point do you say, "this is repugnant but it is OK to read about it" and "this is repugnant so you are forbidden to read about it"?

------------------
All paper clips are born free, but they live in chains

[This message has been edited by Bobolink (edited 01-30-2001).]


Posts: 3442 | From: Stirling, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd just like to put another vote in for using words and terms properly.

Pedophilia: The paraphilia in which adults are sexually aroused by the idea, image or being of a child.

Child molestation: The act of sexually engaging/attacking a child.

Okay? They're different. Pedophilia is NOT child molestation, just like being heterosexual does not mean you are having sexual intercourse with someone.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

"If you're a bird, be an early early bird --
But if you're a worm, sleep late." - Shel Silverstein


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ThisGuy
Activist
Member # 968

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ThisGuy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I did not say they were the same thing. I said they were equally horrible.

Having books relating to murder does not make you likely to murder. No more so than you would anyway, in my opinion. Is reading fantasies about paedophilia different? Yes.

When I read a history book about a war, I am not fantasising about shooting someone, or about anything so much as hitting them. Same with a murder mystery.

Someone who is reading a story about raping a child is actively fantasising - they're placing themselves in the role of rapist or seducer, and weaving themselves into the story. See the difference?

Miz S - the two are intricately linked. Fantasising about something is easier if you have something to base it on. It is easier to engage in paedophilic fantasies if you have access to material portraying such acts.

I'll choose my words more carefully next time. ;)


Posts: 915 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
ThisGuy,
I don't think that that's necessarily so. I think that there are plenty of works of fiction that portray child molestation, rape or what-have-you, but that the audience isn't necessarily putting themselves into the story.

An example: a mini-series a few years ago on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (our public broadcaster) called 'the boys of st. vincent' was all about sexual misdeeds at Canada's religious schools. It portrayed sexual abuse about as delicately as it could have been. It was a work of fiction that was inspired by real events. By what you say, would such a production be illegal? If not, then how would you decide what was and was'nt illegal? That's a very slippery slope...
And if it was to be declared illegal, I have to say that I think that's pretty dangerous too. Would any and all works of fiction with scenes of sexual abuse involving children be baned?

Whew. Sorry.


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ThisGuy
Activist
Member # 968

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ThisGuy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There's a difference.

A story that is graphically detailed and intended to cause arousal is different to a book that describes sexuality in a clinical manner.

A movie about a war that portrays a brutal and gruesome scene of death, is different to a video full of people being killed in car accidents. Is the Thin Red Line equivalent to "World's Wildest Lawnmower Decapitations III"?

A show that re-enacts cruelties inflicted upon children is not the same as a child porn video.

Are there movies with sex in them on TV? Where I live, yes. In the US, its more limited, but they still exist. Yet, pornographic movies specifically about sex acts are controlled. We can obviously distinguish the difference here.

A line can be drawn. Its not always easy to make a decision - as with anything relating to people, its not black and white. However, I see it as possible to distinguish between a work of fiction intended to enlighten/entertain without being specifically pornographic, and a film that is.

------------------
Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!


Posts: 915 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
india
Activist
Member # 2550

Icon 1 posted      Profile for india     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think childpornography is the lowest kind of devilish thing. i mean this is terrible. children are like innocents, and those sick people are taking advantage of their innocence. there are those stuff in the market you can buy. but if you buy you are rewarding them for their work. so you are also a sick person. there was this 2 Swedish couples came to India. they would give money and food to the poor children. and they would make movies. this is such a sick thing. many Europeans will come to India and do these stuff. this is really really sick. i cant believe this. this is so terrible. peace love.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lin
Activist
Member # 2050

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
India honey..I saw an article on that story and it really brought tears to my eyes.

While what india has said may seem very blunt, I agree with everything she has said.

I don't really want to say much on this topic coz my views on child pornography, paedophila etc are very very uncompromising and I think I would rather keep them to myself.

But ThisGuy...I'm with you on this.

[This message has been edited by Lin (edited 02-03-2001).]


Posts: 2294 | From: Singapore | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hippiechicck
Neophyte
Member # 2724

Icon 1 posted      Profile for hippiechicck     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
there is a eminem song that talks about gang bang rape on his little sister? i like eminem but tht is wrong what song i might delete it
Posts: 1 | From: seattle,wa,us | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
hippiechick,
Have you heard 'Amityville'? If yes, then next time, listen closer...

Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Saw a programme on TV last night about how a combined operation of several police forces managed to take down the members of this child porn group called Wonderland. This was a massive paedophile ring and the main members of it have all been succesfully arrested and many items of evidence seized. Id say a job well done from what I saw on the programme.
Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lin
Activist
Member # 2050

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was just going to post about Wonderland when you did confused.

Read this. It has to be the saddest thing I have read in years.

Wonderland


Posts: 2294 | From: Singapore | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There was a big child porn bust in this country recently. Actually, it wasn't so much a bust as it was police complaining about how few resources they have to track down people who look at child pornography.

Rick Salutin, bless him, put forth some interesting thoughts on the matter today (link's only good for the next week). Not many people have anything original to say about child pornography, that's for sure. He was using as his starting point a press conference that police in Toronto held this week to update the media on their progress in the matter.

Following are some of the highlights.

About the relation between possessing child pornography and abusing children:
"What precisely does the abuse have to do with possessing the images? Did they abuse because they had the images? Or would they have still abused even if they didn't have the images? How about those who abuse kids but don't collect images? And what about people who collect images and because of that, do not abuse kids instead?

You may not like what people like to put in their heads but it's a hell of a place to go and it leads straight to the world of the Thought Police."

About those thought police:
"The officers yesterday stressed with fervour that these are not just pictures of kids, but of kids being victimized. So is watching pictures of a crime now a crime? There are videos of executions and beheadings that people apparently like to watch. It's revolting but does that make the viewers of those acts responsible for them? The police said that those arrested had purchased 'access to some of the most evil images of child abuse you can imagine.' I don't doubt it. But it's an image, it's not them doing the thing. Human beings are capable of contemplating, entertaining and being entertained by all kinds of thoughts -- including the police at the conference."

And, about the hysteria surrounding child pornography:
[i]"From what I saw, the press conference wasn't mainly about enforcing the law on child pornography -- which was barely mentioned; or even child abuse, which came up in an aside. It was mainly about being horrified at what is out there in the world and in people's minds..."

Just thought these were worth putting out there...

------------------
"And when I'm gone, she'll never leave me. No, no she'll never, be untrue. And buddy if you do not believe me, you don't believe the sky is blue."
-Joel Plaskett, Down at the Khyber


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maharet
Activist
Member # 3806

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Maharet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There was a really facinating article I came across recently. It was David Steinberg's Comes Naturally column #83. (!Be warned!, the only place I can find this is in an 18+ website, anyone under 18 who tries to access this site via a web search will immediately have the Purity Police smashing down their door to brainwash them back into innocence/ignorance!)

Basically, the article said the following: There are two groups in society, the designated innocents and the designated perverts. The 'innocents', were once women and children, now just children. They're the ones that have no sexual desires or drives of their own and
"...we now assume that society must protect its asexual children both from preditors and from sexual information."
Enter the designated perverts, the people "[who] must be so loathsome to the general population that the social outrage he generates (designated perverts are usually male) is extreme enough to serve as a warning to all who would deviate from sexual normalcy as to what will happen to them if they do. Designated perverts must be seen as so vile, so subhuman really, that the full venom of social punishment -- social ostracism, legal confinement, even violent personal attack -- can be visited upon them without any sense of guilt, mercy, or compromise."

Sounds just like what vigilanty (sp!) groups do right now to pedophiles, although the article suggests that the new perverts are the photographers etc that "acknowledge and affirm the sexuality of young people. [...]
I believe this is why the objections to nude photographs of children have been so vicious and impassioned. The continuing pattern of these attacks suggests that it will not be necessary to be a child molester, or even a pedophile, to be seen as the new pervert. The social need to enforce the non-sexuality of children and the exaggerated sexual innocence of adolescents is so great that the simple act of photographically addressing the eroticism of adolescents in an honest, respectful, and appreciative way has become sufficient to draw the full venom familiar to designated perverts."

(Note: I originally posted this in Pedophila in XBox, but it makes more sense to have it as part of this thread, I think. Is there a way to shift your own posts? )

[This message has been edited by Maharet (edited 01-18-2003).]


Posts: 66 | From: Perth, Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(There isn't, but I can delete it in that other thread for you, Maharet. Nice contribution, btw, and good to see you back around.)

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
punkfag
Neophyte
Member # 11119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for punkfag     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If real, live children are being exploited, I think (I hope..) it goes without saying that kiddie porn is gross and wrong. I think the lines get blurred when we talk about drawing or writing. In the case of writing or art, I have to come down in favour of freedom of expression. As much as it may digust me, no child is being hurt by it. Reading a story about pedophilia will not cause someone to molest children. Pedophilia is a disease. A story can't give it to you. It's more probable that a story about bank robbing would cause people to go out and rob banks. We don't ban those, do we?

To spend our time policing stories about sex with kids when real kids are being raped, killed, and enslaved in the world makes no sense to me.


Posts: 12 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3