# What really is, "Child Porn"?



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2008)

Here's a question that the story in TheRegister's got me pondering.

What really is Child Porn?

Is it that picture you took of your baby in the bathtub or naked on the rug?
Some people think so. (warning, nude baby picture on article)

Is it that outting to the nudist camp?
Some think so.

Was it a naked 12 year old Brooke Shields in _Pretty Baby_,?
Some say it was.

Then there was the case with Jimmy Stephans, where law enforcement thought they had a slam dunk case, only to see all charges dropped.


So, what really is Child Porn, and what are simply pictures?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Oct 28, 2008)

I think an officer may be best to answer that question.

I think this defination works:



> Child pornography refers to sexually explicit material that involves individuals under the age of eighteen


 
And



> the US Department of Justice recently revised their definition of "child porn" to include any image that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." This is part of an effort to crack down on what the government refers to as "-virtual child pornography."



-Source:http://www.ehow.com/how_2140124_rep...ce=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_art


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2008)

> I think an officer may be best to answer that question.



I disagree.  In the case of Jimmy Stephans, LEO's thought they had a cut and dried case. The DA filed 900 charges, and they were all dismissed. 

I do agree with the definitions you posted though, and I think the key words there are "engaging in sexually explicit conduct."  

But is a photo of a 14 yr old, nude, leaning against a tree reading a book, porn, or just a photo of a nude girl reading a book?


----------



## JBrainard (Oct 28, 2008)

Well, that's the age old question, isn't it? What is obscene and what is art? There will always be debate because what is art to some is obscenity to others.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Oct 28, 2008)

When I worked as a manager in a drug store we were told when processing film that any pictures with minor naked was fine if they were not touching anyone else and were not engaged in any sexual explict conduct. However I was also told to use my judgement.

I can come to an understanding of a minor in what some would call a tasteful nude has art in fact there was a book published showing such things. I here it goes for quite alot of money.

I am sure there are sites that use the artful image as a disguise in which porn and art can be blurry and becomes the choice of a judge or a jury.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2008)

Very true.  I've skimmed through a number of art books that struck me as inappropriate. I've also seen works from people considered to be master photographers, that were very controversial when done (early days of photography).

The other part of the question is, what is "explicit"?  I mean, there are people out there who get turned on by a salt shaker, so it's a bit subjective.

I can see if it was in a sexual way, ie penetration, intimate contact, fluid exchanges, bodily waste, and the like.  Or "spread" shots (ala Hustler) or aroused shots.  Add in the obvious toys, etc.

But is something like this art or porn?
(Warning, nude photo accompanies article. Photo was on an art magazine cover, shown here). Some in Australia think it's too far.  I've used the exact same pose hundreds of times on clothed children while working at Picture People.


----------



## JBrainard (Oct 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The other part of the question is, what is "explicit"? I mean, there are people out there who get turned on by a salt shaker, so it's a bit subjective.
> I can see if it was in a sexual way, ie penetration, intimate contact, fluid exchanges, bodily waste, and the like. Or "spread" shots (ala Hustler) or aroused shots. Add in the obvious toys, etc..


 
Those are good points and it reminded me of something. Have you ever seen the movie "Bastard out of South Carolina?" Near the end is a scene where a 10'sh year old girl is raped. There is no nudity, penitration, etc; but you definitely know what's going on. And even though I think that in the context of the film the director had complete artistic integrity to film that scene, you know that a pedophile would totally get off on it. So, is it all in the eye of the beholder?



Bob Hubbard said:


> But is something like this art or porn?
> Some in Australia think it's too far. I've used the exact same pose hundreds of times on clothed children while working at Picture People.


 
I would say that's art. But as you pointed out, my stating that is purely subjective, so who is to say that I'm right or wrong? The Church? The State? My own damn self?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 28, 2008)

I think art done in good taste is just that; art. The problems come in when trying to set boundries on what should be considered art because art is subject to individual interpretations. 

Some pictures are undoubtablly lewd and their intent is clear; however, sometimes the line isn't that clear. 

A lot of folks consider any minor unclothed to be inappropriate at the very least. For example: they may not consider a black and white photo of a 14 year old draped in a see through cloth as porn, but they definately consider it inappropriate. 

Then the question is "why?" Why would that be inappropriate? 

Because she's a minor and not capable of making responsible decisions? 

Because even though some would consider it good taste, it could illicit a less than desirable response from others that was not intended by the artist? 

Because Americans are so up-tight about nudity?

Because you live in the Bible Belt? 

Probably, and then some. I'm sure there are more reasons against it just as there are several points to be made that there is nothing wrong with it. 

There's no doubt that obvious child porn should be illegal and the people involved should be prosecuted. Any time a child is taken advantage of, emotionally and/or physically abused it is a haneous crime indeed. 

But...is a child being taken advantage of, or hurt in any way by being nude and leaning up against a tree reading a book and having their picture taken? There's the rub.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 28, 2008)

To me Child Porn is that of a child being photographed in a sexual manner with the *intent* of conveying sexuality. A baby or even a 3 yr. old sitting naked on the living room rug just sitting there looking happy or crying or whatever but nothing that really could be construed as sexual (except by the worse of deviants) isn't porn. 
I've seen photos of a nude woman holding her nude daughter of 8 close to her body in an embrace and called it art, nothing explicit was shown even the girl's breast/nipples were covered by the mother's arm and it was all above the waist. But nothing could've been interpreted as sexual... at least as I saw it. But others will. 
It is a fine line but it all boils down to, I believe, with the intent of the photograph. Was the photographer intending to elicit arousal upon whomever might view it, was the photographer intentionally trying to convey sexual overtones. That is porn. 
The pictures so far, to me show only naked children, the backgrounds and props are part of the photo and thus it's art for art's sake and intended to convey whatever message the photographer wanted to say.  
In the case of Pretty Baby (and soon to be released film starring Dakota Fanning in a supposedly explicit rape scene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hounddog_(film) ) Shields was wearing a body suit and the male actor (Keith Carradine) was himself wearing a flesh colored brief which covered his genitals. Again the nudity and sexuality of that cannot IMO be interpreted as Child Porn because of the intent of the story line was not to arouse it's audience but to tell a story about child prostitution in the early 1900's. Granted, the writer(s) and director *could've *have written/directed/shot certain scenes to imply nudity here, sexual contact there and so on but the film might have not garnered the attention and boosted Shields to stardom. But they still couldn't been interpreted as porn. 

One man art is another's porn as the saying goes. 
However; when it involves children then a line must be carefully drawn. What are you trying to say with that photo, what are you trying to get your audience/viewer to feel? That makes a difference, a BIG difference.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But is something like this art or porn?



Interesting legal wedge, isn't it? In order for something not to be porn, does it have to be art? Just because something is art, does that mean that pedophiles are not stimulated by it, or if they are, that it doesn't count. Is it the product, or how a given person reacts to it?


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 28, 2008)

Now that's a good and morally tangling question, Gordon.  

An elaboration of it is a hypothetical picture which shows a young teenage girl (or boy) in a definitely sexually provocative context as an exploration of the concept of emerging sexual awareness.  I would argue very strongly that that is art, an examination of a facet of the human condition.

But such a picture could also give 'gratification' to that segment of the population whose 'drives' are outside the norm (to phrase this politely).

It is still art as the intent with which it was made is not connected to the 'use' to which some will put it.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 28, 2008)

I have an old photo (from a film camera) of my infant son being bathed in the kitchen sink. As soon as his backside hit the water, he immediately peed, so there's funny little arc of pee coming out of the sink. I don't think the picture was porn, and I sure as Hell don't think it was art. It's merely something I keep for that day he brings home the person he wants to marry. Then I show it to the grandkids.



Sukerkin said:


> Now that's a good and morally tangling question, Gordon.
> 
> An elaboration of it is a hypothetical picture which shows a young teenage girl (or boy) in a definitely sexually provocative context as an exploration of the concept of emerging sexual awareness.  I would argue very strongly that that is art, an examination of a facet of the human condition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2008)

gordon nore said:


> i have an old photo (from a film camera) of my infant son being bathed in the kitchen sink. As soon as his backside hit the water, he immediately peed, so there's funny little arc of pee coming out of the sink. I don't think the picture was porn, and i sure as hell don't think it was art. It's merely something i keep for that day he brings home the person he wants to marry. Then i show it to the grandkids.


rofl!!!!


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 28, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Interesting legal wedge, isn't it? In order for something not to be porn, does it have to be art? Just because something is art, does that mean that pedophiles are not stimulated by it, or if they are, that it doesn't count. Is it the product, or how a given person reacts to it?


Porn isn't who views it... porn is who MAKES it. Again, what is the "artist's" intent with the image? A pedo can get aroused looking at a fully dressed 9 yr. old standing in the park next to the family dog holding a balloon, because in their minds they can go where they want with it. A nude photo only creates a shortcut for them leaving nothing but the act (of pedophilia ) to the imagination. Who ever took that photo may pose the child to make the short-cut even more brief via provocatively posing the child or having them do something (sexual). That is porn... same with adults who are posed naked, is the statue of David by Michelangelo porn? His gentitals are exposed he's standing in what could be a provactive stance? But that wasn't the artist's intent was it? But who ever views that can interpret it that way if they want to. Does that make it Porn? I don't think so. Same with Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" It's considered one of the finest piece of art around... yet her bare breast are exposed, she's clearly nude... is it porn? No. 



Gordon Nore said:


> I have an old photo (from a film camera) of my infant son being bathed in the kitchen sink. As soon as his backside hit the water, he immediately peed, so there's funny little arc of pee coming out of the sink. I don't think the picture was porn, and I sure as Hell don't think it was art. It's merely something I keep for that day he brings home the person he wants to marry. Then I show it to the grandkids.


That type of photo is in the catagory of family pictures which happen to capture the moment the subject was nude. Your intent wasn't to entice people with arousal with a picture of a child being involved with watersports was it? No! Of course it wasn't! 
However, a pedo could look at it and via their imagination twist it to that means. But is the photo still porn? No, not in my opinion. 

Yet the real question can lie with the possiblity of someone posting that picture on a real child porn site ... now does that make the picture porn? Again I don't think so because that was not the original intent of the photo, it just got twisted around to suit.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 14, 2010)

Child porn is when you look to make or look to obtain child pornography. However the pic of your butt naked baby you put online because you think its cute might end up in the collection of some perv, because he thinks its hot.

I like kittens and sometimes look at youtube videos of pets, but that does not mean i am interested in bestiality in any way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2010)

I will not post the links, but Google the works of photographer Jock Sturges, or David Hamilton, amongst others.  

Although controversial, what he does is generally considered to be art and not pornography.

Others have not been so lucky.

In the USA, pornography laws vary by state, and the courts have generally held that local community standards rule, so what is legal in one place may be completely illegal in another.

So child pornography, like any pornography, exists in the mind of the viewer.  The difficulty is in legislating what people feel, since at the present it is still impossible to determine what's in people's nasty little minds.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 14, 2010)

No clear cut answer.  Speaking with another LEO from a different jurisdiction, they busted a person who had a large collection of child porn.  Among them was a photo that had been altered.  The original photo was of 3-4 small boys naked on the beach playing in the sand.  This guy cropped the photo and enlarged it to only focus on the genitals.  So again, what might be a cute family photo for one person IS another person's fantasy.

I believe, that except for obvious exploitations of children, a photo of a small naked child at the beach, for example, should be taken in the context of where it was found etc and why.

There are some people, who market their child porn as modeling pictures and get VERY close to that legal line, but are still able to fill that "niche market" and they also make LOTS of money selling access to their website for other people to look at the pictures. It is a very hard legal battle to win in cases like that.  Then it goes back to CC's argument of illegal vs. inappropriate.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> No clear cut answer.  Speaking with another LEO from a different jurisdiction, they busted a person who had a large collection of child porn.  Among them was a photo that had been altered.  The original photo was of 3-4 small boys naked on the beach playing in the sand.  This guy cropped the photo and enlarged it to only focus on the genitals.  So again, what might be a cute family photo for one person IS another person's fantasy.
> 
> I believe, that except for obvious exploitations of children, a photo of a small naked child at the beach, for example, should be taken in the context of where it was found etc and why.
> 
> There are some people, who market their child porn as modeling pictures and get VERY close to that legal line, but are still able to fill that "niche market" and they also make LOTS of money selling access to their website for other people to look at the pictures. It is a very hard legal battle to win in cases like that.  Then it goes back to CC's argument of illegal vs. inappropriate.



Now, here's the question!

Given that the intent of the viewer is operative here, what is the purpose of prosecuting a person for what they feel when they look at a particular photo that might be perfection innocent to another?

When I've asked that question in the past, I've sometimes gotten indignant answers that we're protecting children from abuse here.  But if the photo in question was taken innocently and is being used inappropriately, in what way is the child being abused?

In other words, if I'm a sick little twist and I get my jollies out of looking at the photos of child models in clothing catalogs like JC Penney, in what way are the models being harmed by my illness?

Clearly there are images that are exploitative in nature.  But we also seem, as a culture, to want to not just protect children, but to punish people for having 'weird' fantasies and thoughts.  These laws are often attempts to do just that.  Despite protestations to the contrary, we *do* care very much what people think and feel in the privacy of their own minds, and if don't care for it, we'd like to make it criminal.

And what's really odd is that our culture pushes sexuality as an important aspect of our society; we use images of younger and younger children in sexual and sensual circumstances to sell products and entertain ourselves; then we punish anyone who admits to being attracted to what we tell them they should be attracted to.  Sick.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, here's the question!
> 
> Given that the intent of the viewer is operative here, what is the purpose of prosecuting a person for what they feel when they look at a particular photo that might be perfection innocent to another?
> 
> ...


 
Most of the time, pedophiles don't stop at just looking at catalogs of kids.  They actively go out and seek more and more.  So while you might find a bunch of catalog pictures in their collection, you will also find alot of other pictures of exploited children.  Also, stats show that for most pictures aren't enough, they have active plans to carry out their fantasies.  I think that is one of the reaons why it is such a hot topic.

As to your last paragraph, I agree.  Children are being exploited as sexual objects at all levels of our society for advertising purposes.  I think that is wrong as well.  That one I blame the parents.  Look at some of those "beauty contests" where they have the little girls in make up and how they have them act.  IMO, wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> As to your last paragraph, I agree.  Children are being exploited as sexual objects at all levels of our society for advertising purposes.  I think that is wrong as well.  That one I blame the parents.  Look at some of those "beauty contests" where they have the little girls in make up and how they have them act.  IMO, wrong.



Without an audience, such things would have no draw.  We are to blame - all of us.  One has only to listen to the water-cooler talk about whatever the jailbait-du-jour is and her latest wardrobe malfunction or other 'adult' act committed to know that.

We're a culture of very very sick people, judging by our response to those we catch acting out on what apparently most of us like.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, here's the question!
> 
> Given that the intent of the viewer is operative here, what is the purpose of prosecuting a person for what they feel when they look at a particular photo that might be perfection innocent to another?
> 
> ...



Having worked with sex offenders during their period of therapy (both group and individual) what I've learned is that pedophilia is a cyclic behavior pattern. One does not just start sexualizing children off the bat. Thoughts, feelings and actions can take a while to come to fruition. I could explain, and for a few minutes started to but then realized that my post would take up an entire page.   Most pedos are people (men/women) who often have difficulty with normal adult same-age relationships. THey are also those who have a deep sense of powerlessness in their own little world. A nagging or abusive spouse or even employer, rowdy neighbors ... whatever!  They discover how easily children are manipulated and &quot;controlled&quot;. That feeling of power and control emboldens them and they seek more of it. They're usually lonely and isolated individuals in spite of a clique of friends/family.  They begin to develop an attraction to children, usually focusing on a particular age group and this is sometimes due to accessibility. A neighbor's child or family member's child or sunday school classes that they teach for their church or simply the grade that they're teaching/coaching at school... whatever!  So your six or eight year old might be perfectly safe being alone with a pedo because they prefer 12-14 year olds. But it is no guarantee of that...but I've seen that pattern before and it's fairly consistent.  They usually channel their depressed and troubled lives into building a relationship with someone who listens or cares or provides adequate distraction.  As they go through this long process they are exposed to all sorts of media involving children. Flipping through channels and seeing kids on tv doing commercials or tv shows/movies.  Magazines, catalogs, billboards and so on. It provides fuel for their imaginations. Same goes for a (serial) rapist who gets his wheels spinning while looking through a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue or that hot babe on tv/movie they watched ... those women aren't being abused are they? Same with the kids who model, act.   The pedo builds up a fantasy world the same as any adult would about an adult. The difference is the adult to adult doesn't have relationship issues or difficulty finding &quot;normal&quot; relationships and so will focus on that age group.  The fantasies are thoughts which leads to good feelings and eventually those feelings will prompt the offender to act out.  It's a long drawn out process of progression to the act and hundreds and dozens of children are filtered through the pedo's mind before they finally act out during a choice opportunity.     To say that our media helps fuel inappropriate behavior or thoughts... I'd say it's fair but until we know WHO has those inappropriate thoughts we cannot call it porn unless it's blatantly obvious.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Clearly there are images that are exploitative in nature. But we also seem, as a culture, to want to not just protect children, but to punish people for having 'weird' fantasies and thoughts. These laws are often attempts to do just that. Despite protestations to the contrary, we *do* care very much what people think and feel in the privacy of their own minds, and if don't care for it, we'd like to make it criminal.


 
This sums up the reason behind the change in the child porn definition to include virtual kiddy porn that was mentioned earlier.  To clarify, virtual kiddy porn meaning electronically created images of teens and even kids that look incredibly life-like.  The twist is that the images are entirely created; no living child is actually exploited, so the old definition would not apply.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> This sums up the reason behind the change in the child porn definition to include virtual kiddy porn that was mentioned earlier.  To clarify, virtual kiddy porn meaning electronically created images of teens and even kids that look incredibly life-like.  The twist is that the images are entirely created; no living child is actually exploited, so the old definition would not apply.



Correct.  In such a case, there is no real-life victim, unless one wants to argue that society is the victim because the sad little twist in question is now more of a threat to society than he was before.  However, it seems Occam's Razor would suppose that the real reason is that we want to punish them because we despise their particular perversion.  You'd almost think that perhaps we hate it so much because we can identify with it...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> RandomPhantom700 said:
> 
> 
> > This sums up the reason behind the  change in the child porn definition to include virtual kiddy porn that  was mentioned earlier.  To clarify, virtual kiddy porn meaning  electronically created images of teens and even kids that look  incredibly life-like.  The twist is that the images are entirely  created; no living child is actually exploited, so the old definition  would not apply.
> ...


 
Looking at child porn, whether real life photos or 3D created or even hand drawn does not JUSTIFY it at all. 
Three things that pedos do to enable them to act out... is 1. Justify 2. Rationalize and 3. Minimize. Those are not in any particular order either. 
Oh this is just drawn out from some artist's imagination... no real children are being used... 
You look at sexually explicit material for what reason? To be aroused to be stimulated to give your fantasy's a more visual than what your own imagination can conjure up...  they get worked up and wanting the real thing and then go out and find a child to victimize. 

Trust me, 26 months working with these sick pervs and learning their rationale and thought processes... because they were made to dig into their own psyche to find out what causes their perversion and what are the triggers... roughly 99% of them said ONE of the triggers was porn of some sort or another. The other 1% refused to admit it because he rationalized that it was hurting NO-ONE and wasn't the cause of his desires to have sex with children... he's now sitting in prison.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 15, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Without an audience, such things would have no draw. We are to blame - all of us. One has only to listen to the water-cooler talk about whatever the jailbait-du-jour is and her latest wardrobe malfunction or other 'adult' act committed to know that.
> 
> We're a culture of very very sick people, judging by our response to those we catch acting out on what apparently most of us like.


 
Agreed, we are on the same page.  

We are a "sex sells" society.  It keeps getting worse and worse.  On the one hand people are outraged that someone would do that when they see it on the news, and then flip the channel and start looking at the latest girl being sexxxed up by Disney or Nickelodeon.  Hypocritical to say the least.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 15, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Looking at child porn, whether real life photos or 3D created or even hand drawn does not JUSTIFY it at all.
> Three things that pedos do to enable them to act out... is 1. Justify 2. Rationalize and 3. Minimize. Those are not in any particular order either.
> Oh this is just drawn out from some artist's imagination... no real children are being used...
> You look at sexually explicit material for what reason? To be aroused to be stimulated to give your fantasy's a more visual than what your own imagination can conjure up... they get worked up and wanting the real thing and then go out and find a child to victimize.


 
Exploiting and abusing a child is wrong, and a crime. Virtual porn which involves no actual actors hurts no one. Those who would go and molest a child after getting worked up on it would do the same after flipping through any pre-teen fashion magazine. 

You're basically using the same rationale as advocates of restricting or banning violent music or video games, i.e. the sick wackos play hours of GTA and then decide to go out and shoot up a crowd in a mall. That's tragic, but there's also millions of us who play violent video games or listen to Marilyn Manson and don't, so where's that put us?



> Trust me, 26 months working with these sick pervs and learning their rationale and thought processes... because they were made to dig into their own psyche to find out what causes their perversion and what are the triggers... roughly 99% of them said ONE of the triggers was porn of some sort or another. The other 1% refused to admit it because he rationalized that it was hurting NO-ONE and wasn't the cause of his desires to have sex with children... he's now sitting in prison.


 
This is great and all, but where'd you work? 99% of how many? How'd you come to such an overwhelming percentage? I don't mean to nit-pick, but there's a reason many of us on the board are suspicious of anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 15, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Looking at child porn, whether real life photos or 3D created or even hand drawn does not JUSTIFY it at all.
> Three things that pedos do to enable them to act out... is 1. Justify 2. Rationalize and 3. Minimize. Those are not in any particular order either.
> Oh this is just drawn out from some artist's imagination... no real children are being used...
> You look at sexually explicit material for what reason? To be aroused to be stimulated to give your fantasy's a more visual than what your own imagination can conjure up...  they get worked up and wanting the real thing and then go out and find a child to victimize.
> ...



Typically, we do not punish people for crimes they might commit.

Let's arrest gun owners; some of them will commit crimes with them.  Or automobile drivers; many of them will get drunk and drive and hurt someone.

It's called 'Prior Restraint' and generally speaking, we don't do it.  Tell me why this is different.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 15, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Porn isn't who views it... porn is who MAKES it. Again, what is the "artist's" intent with the image? A pedo can get aroused looking at a fully dressed 9 yr. old standing in the park next to the family dog holding a balloon, because in their minds they can go where they want with it. A nude photo only creates a shortcut for them leaving nothing but the act (of pedophilia ) to the imagination. Who ever took that photo may pose the child to make the short-cut even more brief via provocatively posing the child or having them do something (sexual). That is porn... same with adults who are posed naked, is the statue of David by Michelangelo porn? His gentitals are exposed he's standing in what could be a provactive stance? But that wasn't the artist's intent was it? But who ever views that can interpret it that way if they want to. Does that make it Porn? I don't think so. Same with Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" It's considered one of the finest piece of art around... yet her bare breast are exposed, she's clearly nude... is it porn? No.


 
Best post on the subject so far, IMO. I'd also argue that the artist's intent acts to influence how they present the material in question. For example, after the refurbishment it went through some years ago pretty much every figure on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling is nude. But the intent of Michelangello was not to provoke a sexually stimulating reaction from his audience and so presented the figures in such a way that, despite them being nude they are not in any way arousing. 

Speaking as someone who has counselled children in the past who have dealt with sexual abuse and its results I'd even go so far as to say that if someone did have a reaction to artwork such as the ones mentioned above they would have almost certainly been the victims of some sort of sexual predator and, as such, have some serious mental health issues to deal with.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 15, 2010)

I know and understand that one thing can lead to another, but I find it kind of scary that a person can go to jail for what they decide to doodle in an artbook. I understand those works could fall into the wrong hands, but it seems a bit intrusive. Can a person get arrested for owning dirty pictures he drew as a kid? What if he didn't remember he even had them?
Sean


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 15, 2010)

.





RandomPhantom700 said:


> > Originally Posted by *MA-Caver*
> >
> >
> > _Looking at child porn, whether real  life photos or 3D created or even hand drawn does not JUSTIFY it at  all.
> ...


There is a LOT more to child pornography than just plain nude kids doing naughty things by themselves or with whomever. 
The person who draws it out on their computer or on a piece of paper and intends to SELL the pieces is guilty of a crime. Our society (among many) says it's wrong and hence illegal. Possession of it is illegal. 
Remember it's INTENT. A child's/teen fashion mag has no intent (that we know of) to illicit an inappropriate response from their readers. If a pedo gets his jollies from reading such source material then there isn't a whole lot we can do to stop him/her. But when it's blatantly obvious that there is an image of a child engaging in a sexual act or posing suggestively (read like a playboy or penthouse model.... or even worse a Hustler or Oui model) then it's porn. 
To say that a picture of a nude child on the beach is porn is cutting it pretty thin but a pedo could still find in their sick minds to be aroused by it by using the image to stimulate their imagination. 
But the question is... is it porn? And what definition are we trying to ascertain here. I've been giving my own personal definition of it all along. 
I have argued that other source materials can be misconstrued by the wrong individual but we cannot by no means police that in no shape or form until they ACT (inappropriately) upon it. 



RandomPhantom700 said:


> > Trust me, 26 months working with these sick pervs and learning their  rationale and thought processes... because they were made to dig into  their own psyche to find out what causes their perversion and what are  the triggers... roughly 99% of them said ONE of the triggers was porn of  some sort or another. The other 1% refused to admit it because he  rationalized that it was hurting NO-ONE and wasn't the cause of his  desires to have sex with children... he's now sitting in prison.
> 
> 
> This is great and all, but where'd you work? 99% of how many? How'd you come to such an overwhelming percentage? I don't mean to nit-pick, but there's a reason many of us on the board are suspicious of anecdotal evidence.


I had worked at a small sexual abuse treatment center in Utah. Because I am still bound by confidentiality issues surrounding my involvement with the clients I cannot give further details. My numbers are from that particular place (which I should've pointed out initially and for that oversight I apologize), they have a contract with the State of Utah to treat court-ordered sex-offenders until it is deemed by the staff that they are either not getting with the program and should be sent to prison or that they have undergone the intensive therapy (which can last up to 36 months) and evaluated by the staff and recommended to the board of parole and probation (whomever) that they can be ROR . 

This was a great learning experience for me as an intern therapist, as the methods of therapy is to get the offender to accept 100% accountability for their actions and in order to do that they were made to pick apart every little facet of their inappropriate behavior from day one to the act that they were charged for. The results were quite revealing to many of them and quite a few have ever re-offended. The treatment center's success record was at 99% when I left. Understand that is just the one particular place but they handled the majority of the State sex offenders (and also counseled victims).


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 16, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> .
> This was a great learning experience for me as an intern therapist, as the methods of therapy is to get the offender to accept 100% accountability for their actions and in order to do that they were made to pick apart every little facet of their inappropriate behavior from day one to the act that they were charged for. The results were quite revealing to many of them and quite a few have ever re-offended. The treatment center's success record was at 99% when I left. Understand that is just the one particular place but they handled the majority of the State sex offenders (and also counseled victims).



The numbers I have seen regarding recidivism in cases of sex offenders abusing minors are as follows:
13% within 5 years
18% within 10 years
23% within 15 years
52% within the remainder of their life.
These are the numbers which have been used to argue in favor of law reforms several years ago, regarding the limitation of post-incarceration rights of sex offenders targeting minors.

So your numbers of 99% seem awfully optimistic. I would say that they're either not long term enough, or they are simply not found out again. Even for general sex offenders, the long term recidivism rate is around 40%.

I don't doubt that given a stable environment, people can change their ways and discard their old habits, but as soon as they are under stress or in a situation that provides access to the means of their vice, there is a high risk of recidivism. I am not going propose that the only trustworthy sex offender is a dead sex offender, but the 52% recidivism rate makes me call for life without parole.

Just last week in Belgium, a guy tried to abduct 2 8 year old nieces who were lucky enough to escape. After a 3 day hunt they caught the man. Turns out he had already served time for raping a minor, and was diagnose with mild psychopathic symptoms. He is now charged with attempted rape and faces 10 years. Anyone thinking he will change his ways after those 10 (well, 7 or less) is deluded. Whether you kill them or lock them up for the rest of their life, they should never be allowed to roam the streets again. They had their chance and they blew it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 16, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> The numbers I have seen regarding recidivism in cases of sex offenders abusing minors are as follows:
> 13% within 5 years
> 18% within 10 years
> 23% within 15 years
> ...


Granted my numbers _are_ very optimistic. And that is just what they are... _my_ numbers not the actual center's. It's been over 10 years since I've last been there. However; I can only go by what my own personal experience in the time I spent there and talking casually with chief staff members about the success-rate vs recidivism (or relapse) is pretty successful for that particular facility. Their after-care program allows those "graduates" (for want of a better term), to come back and join in on group sessions whenever scheduled, and have individual counseling via appointment should they need to (out of their pockets). It's up to them. They are made fully aware of the consequences if they are every arrested or even placed under suspicion again. Knowing the treatment sex offenders and pedos get in prison I think they're highly motivated. So even if I were to reconsider and bump the number down to say 95 to as low as 90% that's still pretty dang good.
Yet it's an entirely different topic (which probably at this point needs to be broken off to it's own thread).  

The OP is *What really is, "Child Porn"?* I suggest redirection by present (and future) posters needs to be directly to the topic. Am more than willing to (continue) discussing "What makes Pedos tick and whether treatments are successful or not" in another thread. Provided that it doesn't degenerate down to a variety of  "may they all burn in hell" or "here's what I'd do to them if allowed five minutes alone in a room without windows or cameras" rants. Such discussions are not conductive to understanding... understanding brings one step closer to prevention.


----------

