Are all pictures of child nudity child porn?
Dave The Canuck
2012/06/10 07:22:33
|
|
|||||
|
37 votes
|
|
29% | |||
|
92 votes
|
|
71% | |||
On March 26, I asked the question, "is all nudity porn?" on sodahead. One respondent answered 'no' but wrote, "In the US, child nudity is porn." Therefore, I thought I would ask a more specific version of the question. If a picture shows a child naked, do you feel that it is automatically child porn, regardless of intent or context? (I did not add a picture to go with this question because I was too afraid of what images "add photo or video" might pull up)
Top Opinion
-
Child nudity is not, in and of itself, pornographic.
+8Child porn is in the mind of the pervert viewing the pictures. If your mind doesn't go that direction when you see a little naked butt covered in soap running down a hallway (one of my early photos) then it is an innocent family snapshot and not child porn. If you look at that same picture and see a kid playing hard to get, then it is still not child porn, but you need to be beaten.
"To the people who think that all depictions of child nudity are child pornography, regardless of nature, intent, or context, here is a little thought experiment for you:
Go ask any adult the following question: "Have you ever possessed any child pornography?" Do you expect their answer to be, "Yes, I possessed child pornography constantly for the first 18 years of my life. I had it underneath my clothing."? I think not.
And many people talk about how children are innocent and how we have to protect their innocence. But how can children be innocent at all if they supposedly possess kiddie porn under their clothes all the time? Does that not sound like a contradiction?"
Porn isn't in a photo, it's in a person. If some pervert sees the photo of my daughters in the tub and wants to have sex with them, that's sick. But it's not the photo that's sick, it's the person.
Too many people in the U.S. are hung up on nudity and sex. The rest of the world thinks we're nuts because of it. And every hung-up person IS nuts. Every one of them was born NAKED. The mothers were in a far from graceful or modest position at the time. And how do they think they got inside Mommy's tummy? Divine intervention?
Not sure what your story is meant to prove, but it doesn't change my opinion that not all pix of nude children are pornographic by definition. I really don't care what SF cops ask.
"To the people who think that all depictions of child nudity are child pornography, regardless of nature, intent, or context, here is a little thought experiment for you:
Go ask any adult the following question: "Have you ever possessed any child pornography?" Do you expect their answer to be, "Yes, I possessed child pornography constantly for the first 18 years of my life. I had it underneath my clothing."? I think not.
And many people talk about how children are innocent and how we have to protect their innocence. But how can children be innocent at all if they supposedly possess kiddie porn under their clothes all the time? Does that not sound like a contradiction?"
Routinely sexualizing kids is what pedophiles do so I'm very suspicious about people who can't differentiate...
When I served in Europe, I saw topless women pictured on billboards, it was considered to be normal! but oh well I developed a different outlook.
"To the people who think that all depictions of child nudity are child pornography, regardless of nature, intent, or context, here is a little thought experiment for you:
Go ask any adult the following question: "Have you ever possessed any child pornography?" Do you expect their answer to be, "Yes, I possessed child pornography constantly for the first 18 years of my life. I had it underneath my clothing."? I think not.
And many people talk about how children are innocent and how we have to protect their innocence. But how can children be innocent at all if they supposedly possess kiddie porn under their clothes all the time? Does that not sound like a contradiction?"
"To the people who think that all depictions of child nudity are child pornography, regardless of nature, intent, or context, here is a little thought experiment for you:
Go ask any adult the following question: "Have you ever possessed any child pornography?" Do you expect their answer to be, "Yes, I possessed child pornography constantly for the first 18 years of my life. I had it underneath my clothing."? I think not.
And many people talk about how children are innocent and how we have to protect their innocence. But how can children be innocent at all if they supposedly possess kiddie porn under their clothes all the time? Does that not sound like a contradiction?"