24-03-2002 10:16									#61
	Support Apolyton

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.

	24-03-2002 11:00									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	24-03-2002 12:12									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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?

	24-03-2002 15:14									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	24-03-2002 17:21									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

mmmm porn.......

	24-03-2002 18:12									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

	24-03-2002 19:54									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	24-03-2002 22:54									#68
	Put an end to popups!

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.

	24-03-2002 23:26									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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 ...

	24-03-2002 23:37									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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...

	25-03-2002 00:42									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	25-03-2002 00:42									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	25-03-2002 01:05									#73
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	25-03-2002 01:11									#74
	Support Apolyton

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.

	25-03-2002 02:42									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Eroberer

oh , dear , is someone dissapointed here?

	25-03-2002 02:47									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti oh , dear , is someone dissapointed here?

Oh really? *grabs 12 gauge shotgun*

	25-03-2002 04:02									#77
	Tired of ads?

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

	25-03-2002 05:45									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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?

	25-03-2002 05:51									#79
	Jeez I can't believe people are debating this Remove this text

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


OF COURSE IT IS

	25-03-2002 11:34									#80
	Remove this text

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.

	25-03-2002 16:52									#81
	Tired of ads?

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

	25-03-2002 23:14									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	27-03-2002 16:00									#83
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.