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

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Dalgetti


oh , dear , is someone dissapointed here?

Oh really? *grabs 12 gauge shotgun*

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

....and that, dear reader, is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by 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 ...

Ah! But then the question arises, what if the parents DO consent to have their kid's picture merged with a nude adult body? Could a parent legally do this to his/her child?

[Alexander's Horse]

Jeez I can't believe people are debating this

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


OF COURSE IT IS

[Deity Dude]

Anyone care to answer my earlier question? In most states in the US, and I believe Canada also, a man or woman can consent to sex and get married under the age of 18.

Should a husband or wife be guilty of child porn for taking a picture of their nude spouse?

I think child porn is sick. But, I think the age of demarcation between child porn and porn should be equal to the age of consent. It seems ridiculous that someone can legally consent to marriage and sex but not consent to having their picture taken.

As for the thread topic, as far as I'm concerned, pasting a kids face on a nude adult AND DISTRIBUTING IT is not child porn, but it is reckless endangerment involving a minor and fraud. If it is not distributed TO ANYONE, no crime has been committed.

As for drawings and other totally ficticous material, it is not child porn even if it involves images of children.

But I am really interested in what people think about people old enough to consent but under the age of 18. I say this because recently in Michigan there was a case of a man who took nude pictures of his 17 year old fiancee with her consent. He sent them to get developed and the processor called the police. He was arrested, charged and found guilty as a sex offender. This to me makes no sense.

[Tom201]

Taking pictures of your girlfriend/wife with her consent for private usage should be legal at any age.

Taking pictures for commercial usage should remain at age 18 limit.

easy

[Deity Dude]

How would you define "girlfriend", it seems like a little bit of a loose term. But aside from that, I guess you are saying that it makes sense to you that someone is old enough to consent to sex but not old enough to consent to having their picture taken. That to me seems like the tail wagging the dog.

[Tom201]

No, what Im saying is:
With the consent of the other person, u can have sex or take pictures for private usage at any age (means the person is physical ready to have sex, that would be somewhere arround 12/13 min., no child abuse).
What should be forbidden by law is exploit it for commercial purposes, like selling the pictures or prostitution under 18.