adult nude bodies with kids paces pasted on them- is this child pornography?

[Dr Strangelove]

So it would appear that yes, digitally generated images or any artwork conveying the impression of sexual activity by or with a child or of indecent exposure of a child would be punishable.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So it would appear that yes, digitally generated images or any artwork conveying the impression of sexual activity by or with a child or of indecent exposure of a child would be punishable.

I completely agree -- even using "only" faces of children on images of nude adults have an obviously deragatory, malicious effect and purpose.

[Deity Dude]

I have a question a little off topic but still relevant.

Shouldn't the age of consent = the age of demarcation between porn and child porn. For example, in Michigan u can consent to sex and get married at 16. This results in the riduclulous situation that if a husband took a picture of his nude 16 year old wife with her consent he would be guilty of child porn.

Any comments?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

First off- Paedophilia is not a crime. Committing abusive acts against children, or in any way assisting the abuse of them (the justification for making illegal downloading images of child porn) certainly is. However we don't have Thought Police, and I hope we never will. If someone is a paedophile and never commits any crime against children I would hope they would face no censure for resisting their urges. The age of witch-hunts should remain in the past.

As for child faces on adult bodies? First off, I doubt it would appeal to paedophiles who want to look at children's bodies, not adults. Secondly, no abuse of children is involved. If you stick a horse's head on a nude picture of Pamela Anderson, are you guilty of bestiality and cruelty to animals? I think not.

The air of hysteria that surrounds paedophilia disturbs me. Yes- it's a serious crime and should be treated as such, but I see too many judgements getting clouded by a desire to strongly assert normality by making violent and "Old Testament" style statements on the subject.

[Jools]

mmmm porn.......

[Jac de Molay]

I dont think this should be a punishable offense. The passage of such laws would only create more problems than it would solve. For instance, a 1997 remake of Lolita was left on the cutting floor because congress had recently passed the Child Porn Protection Act, which forbade the use of such "simulated" images. The director, Adrian Lyne, used a body double for sex scenes, but the fact that it was made to appear that the younger child was involved made it illegal.
The slippery slope argument comes to mind. Because the parameters for what is "implied illegality" are so vague, specific communities could apply such a law across a whole spectrum of acts. Nabakov's work itself could be considered "implied", as well as the Anarchist's cookbook. The vagueness of the criteria is a little unsettling.


Dave

[Adalbertus]

Today a thought came to me about this subject which made me very carefully:
I cannot imagine what happens inside a pedophilics brain, and so I don't know if they could feel a desire for a kid's face on a nude adult body.
But there is one motivation why one might want to paint childrens faces on a nude body (especially a female belly): This is if she wants to be, or he wants to see her, pregnant. So the pictures can be the expression of a very natural and deep desire (one perhaps is not directly aware of). Punishing this is for me a very serious crime as it can destroy personalities in quite the same way as child abuse or rape.
If these pictures have a pedophilic background such that it in one or the other way leads to child abuse, it should be punished. The chances to destroy a perfectly innocent person is big, however, especially if there are no psychologically trained experts.

[Dis]

we already have thouht police. What do you think hate crimes are?

And yes this is considered illegal by current U.S. laws.

I'm divided on the issue. On one hand, I want them to use everything in their power to stop such abuse to children. And that includes arresting anyone distributing this stuff. Hopefully by creating a fear of arrest, demand will go down, thusly reducing supply. That would be in a perfect world of course. Whether this actually works or not is unknown. But I think the fear of arrest works very well in this case unlike drug arrest because you have the added element of public embarrassment.

So yes I do support the laws as is. But I am wary of course of abuses of these kinds of laws. And the precedent they set. They could spawn other laws based on thoughts. We must be vigilant of this.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

0 tolerance is craps.
0 tolerance against porns is pure craps.

I thinks that porns could evacuate some libido from frustated people (with "normal" sexuality"). Porn don't make rapers.
Peadophile porn have not to be tolerate is kids are involved in the process.

In the case of porn picture who build with kids faces pasted on adult body, I think it should be Illegal not because it's porn, but because they have used picture without the autorization of the parent ! That's illegal.

Still the imagination of certain people is overhelming and ... disturbing ...

[Adalbertus]

Dissident,

Unfortunately, there are situations where thoughts are the only difference. There are many sexual abuses which work through intimidation. The physical acts are much the same as when having sex in full harmony. I think everyone agrees that one is a crime, the other isn't. Trying to fit the physical differences into a law is absolutely ridiculous. In these cases you have only the choice to look at thoughts or be unjust.
Just one question aside: Is the issue to create or to distribute the pictures? If I painted a kid's face on a woman (given the pregnancy connotation) I certainly wouldn't like to have this picture distributed, because it would be a very personal matter between her and myself. But I know other people think different...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
First off- Paedophilia is not a crime. Committing abusive acts against children, or in any way assisting the abuse of them (the justification for making illegal downloading images of child porn) certainly is.

The air of hysteria that surrounds paedophilia disturbs me. Yes- it's a serious crime and should be treated as such, but I see too many judgements getting clouded by a desire to strongly assert normality by making violent and "Old Testament" style statements on the subject.

Um -- pedophilia is not a crime?? What country do you live in??

And secondly, even though I oppose pedophilia, it does not make me hysterical or intolerant. Adults who manipulate and exploit children into having sex need to be locked up in psychiatric wards.

I have never made "Old Testament" arguments nor violent arguments against pedophilia, so do not make such generalizations about people who are against pedophilia.

And one question -- how do you separate pedophilia behavior from abuse of children?? You seem to claim that these two are separate, since pedophilia is not a crime.

[MrFun]

EDIT, EDIT:

Another double-post. I think there's something wrong with the service that Apolyton is using. I did not choose to make a double-post.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by MrFun


Um -- pedophilia is not a crime?? What country do you live in??

And secondly, even though I oppose pedophilia, it does not make me hysterical or intolerant. Adults who manipulate and exploit children into having sex need to be locked up in psychiatric wards.

I have never made "Old Testament" arguments nor violent arguments against pedophilia, so do not make such generalizations about people who are against pedophilia.

And one question -- how do you separate pedophilia behavior from abuse of children?? You seem to claim that these two are separate, since pedophilia is not a crime.

I live in England, and I hold an LL.B in law, specialising in criminal law and penology. Under English law, paedophilia is not a crime. Abuse of children is.

How do I separate paedophilia from child abuse? In exactly the same way as I separate kleptomania from theft, and schizophrenia from poking people's eyes out with a pointy stick. One is a mindset or mental condition, the other is an act.

Without an act, there is no crime. That's a basic principle of criminal law. If a paedophile never breaks the law, he/she is not a criminal. If a paedophile seeks professional help, rather than abusing children, they should be helped and not reviled.

MrFun, I haven't singled you out as getting "Old Testament", but it's a common trend that in a discussion like this you tend to get people saying "Well I think all paedophiles should be boiled to death in big pots". That's the mindset that concerns me, and it's the same one that causes vigilante attacks on people suspected of being "a bit funny". This is not an exaggeration- it happens.

[MrFun]

Bugs, I knew that it was not necessarily directed towards me, but any generalizations like that are usually no good.
I agree with you though -- violence has too often happened because of distorted, extreme religious values.

And I completely agree with you on your point -- you can definitely separate pedophilia THOUGHT from actual child abuse or exploitation.

Inactive pedophiles should not be locked up if those individuals can be tested psychologically to prove that they can resist acting on their thoughts.

[Az]

Originally posted by Eroberer

oh , dear , is someone dissapointed here?