Child pornography

The vast majority of children involved in the production of child pornography are victims of sexual abuse by adults who really ought to know better. Even when they think they enjoy what is happening to them it is usually a form of brainwashing called "grooming" or "normalisation". Please remember when you see an image of child pornography, you are witnessing the captured image of the abuse of a child.

IF YOU SEE IT REPORT IT, your report could STOP the abuse of a child.

A terrible and reprehensible form of pornography where children and teenagers under the age of eighteen are photographed while naked and/or in lewd poses. Coercing or persuading a child to appear in pornography is invariably manipulative, abusive, and exploitative.

Fortunately, once the individual turns eighteen, they are instantly able to grant informed consent and said photographs are a-ok.

An oversimplification? Probably, but I think it's worth remembering. Civilized people are almost universal in their opposition to child pornography, no matter what their religious views. But I find it hypocritical somehow to say that photographing a sixteen-year-old girl with no clothes on is always morally reprehensible while photographing a naked eighteen-year-old is a woman practicing her feminist freedom of choice. I understand that from a legal standpoint the line needs to be drawn at a particular age, but I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about people's own perception that one age is a free choice while another is just plain wrong, with no grey area in between.

Why is it okay for adults to pose in pornography, but not teens? If it's because teenagers are unable to fully evaluate what's happening, or incapable of fully comprehending the choice they're making? This is hardly a prerogative of youth; adults can be manipulated or naive just as easily as kids. This is similar to the double standard where people have no problem with underage teenagers having sex with each other, but having sex with adults is verboten and immoral.

I don't like child pornography; more accurately, I don't like any kind of pornography. But I really feel like this is a hypocrisy that people ought to confront and think about individually. As a society, our standard for what is and isn't tolerable is falling fast, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. In the 1980s, the idea of equal rights for homosexuals was ridiculous to the majority of Western civilization. I predict that by 2020, pedophiles and child pornographers will have succeeded in convincing the public that their "lifestyle choice" is just as permissible.

Apparently recently there was a forum on Yahoo or E-groups devoted to pictures of naked people for kids.

I was alerted to this by somebody on the Charles de Lint mailing list, who thought that exposing children to nudity early on was an excellent idea, since in our modern society, we can obviously expose young children to sex and expect them to react responsibly. And after all, they have the right to know, right?

nobody: How can you say that "Child pornography has always been illegal in the United States" and then use an example from 1982, New York v. Ferber, and further suggest that until that time the Supreme Court was "permissive" toward any kind of pornography. The writeup you are contesting specifically states that "Most child pornography was more or less legal until the eighties." In using a decision from 1982, you're certainly no where near contesting his statement, and that decision might even be coonsidered as supporting it. It doesn't make any sense.

wavin: While it can certainly be argued that the actual photography of child pornography is child abuse, this cannot be said of the viewing of child pornography. The illegal act should be the actual child abuse, and not, for instance, the possession of child pornography. However, the people have given up yet another right for the security of their children. The thinking goes that, if you make possession of child pornography illegal, then there will be less of a demand for it.

Kiddi porn can be good in a way, it keeps the pedeophiles busy wanking at pictures instead of going after children (although I doubt this is a fair argument.)

Being 16, I like finding pictures of kids in my age range (14-17), because that's who I'm sexually attracted to. At 9, a child isn't sexually attracted to anyone, and therefore should not be photographed nude. It's that simple. Untill children figure out their sexuality, I think it is totally immoral to use them as objects for someone's masturbation excercises.

Now because legality is all about rules, there MUST be an age limit. Personally I think it should be 16, because I think that children have developed enough to make their own decisions at that point. If a 16 year old is forced into making porn, how is that different than a 21 year old being forced? It's not. The only difference is that acording to our laws, the 16 year old doesn't have a mind of his own.

This creates quite a bit of controversy because while most people agree that sexual images of children (ie. those under 16) should be illegal, this piece of legislation goes a step further and also bans the use of adults portrayed as children in sexual images. While the sexual abuse of a child has not occured, these images help to create a market for further child sexual abuse. Creating and possessing this sort of material is saying that it is appropriate to sexualise young children and teenagers.

By banning possession of child pornography the Australian legal system is also acknowledging the role consumers play in creating a market. While those who own this material have not been directly involved in the sexual abuse of the child involved, they are providing income for those who make the pornography. This means they are just as responsible for the pain and suffering endured by the child.

*Information for this node was taken from www.inhope.org