Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Is it child porn?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well, there's a certain p2p community and on that there's a bit of a scandal with regards to child pornography. Basically, on one of the affiliated websites (they sold merchanise I believe), there is apparently a distinctive 'dance'. The creator of the website for some reason, took some photos of his baby / toddler dancing and put them up, not wearing anything.

It's been censored by the swedish olice and theres a bit of a scandal going on apparently. But rather than get involved in the intracacies of this case which I don't understand wholly (just read it on a blog), I thought I would just pose the question:

is a naked dancing child automatically child pornography? I mean, why you'd want to put that on the internet I don't know, but when I was a kid I was naked most of the time :p. My parents going to nudist beaches probably didn't help, but I thought all babies spent a lot of the time naked and making mess. But now I'm not so sure. So what does everyone else think!?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If its not meant to be titillating or erotic, I would not consider it pornography - but perhaps badly considered due to the fact that the youngster will have to live with the teasing in later life?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't consider it porn because the child isn't being abused or taken advantage of.

    It can however be of use to paedophiles who just want to see a naked baby so I can understand it's removal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Probably not, at the same time posting pictures of naked kids (however innocent) is a pretty stupid thing to do....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So long as the children are not in postures that might be deemed sexual and the shots are not close ups of genitals, there is nothing wrong with photographs or videos of naked babies or toddlers. Not when the nature of the website and the image in question isn't sexual.

    FFS, we're elevated sex offenders to evil boogeyman hiding in every house's closet waiting to strike when we least expect it. We're creating an atmosphere where a man would think twice before sitting on a bench to watch kids playing football in case the mob starts pointing fingers at him.

    What will happen if a sex offender is caused wanking off to a children clothes' catalogue? Will we stop using children as models next and use mannequins instead? Why not... we already ban parents from filming their children's school plays in case one of them might decide to watch it for self-gratifying purposes at a later time.

    Fucking ridiculous and infuriating. And not good for the healthy development of children for fuck's sake.

    This hysteria really pisses me off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good points there Aladdin.

    It also really bugs me now that you can't take photos or film in the swimming pool. Now I'm not saying any Tom Dick or Harry should be able to sit there, cam in hand.. but I would of liked to have filmed my kids first time ever in the pool, or first time he swam with his armbands, if I could get even the permission to do it, but even if I did, other parents would probably be giving me evils.

    I have to admit though, even I have become sucked in by the hysteria. An old guy gave my kid a sweet in the park one day, a harmless friendly old guy,but part of me was thinking, you dodgy cunt.. and it was completely baseless... paranoia!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So long as the children are not in postures that might be deemed sexual and the shots are not close ups of genitals, there is nothing wrong with photographs or videos of naked babies or toddlers. Not when the nature of the website and the image in question isn't sexual.

    Agreed
    Why not... we already ban parents from filming their children's school plays in case one of them might decide to watch it for self-gratifying purposes at a later time.

    :eek2:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont think it was intended to be "child porn". Babies often wonder around naked in the privacy of their own homes, but posting on the internet might not have been the brightest idea!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Probably not, at the same time posting pictures of naked kids (however innocent) is a pretty stupid thing to do....

    How so? If it's your own kid and it's something as innocuous as a dance or home movie, what's the issue? And indeed, if it sexually arouses a few deviants, what's the issue with that either? The child, as has been mentioned, is not in any way exploited or abused. Therefore if somebody jerked off to it, that would be just as private and irrelevant as any masturbatory fantasy.

    I now see Aladdin has made a similar point above (children's clothes catalogue). OH WELL.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How so? If it's your own kid and it's something as innocuous as a dance or home movie, what's the issue? And indeed, if it sexually arouses a few deviants, what's the issue with that either? The child, as has been mentioned, is not in any way exploited or abused. Therefore if somebody jerked off to it, that would be just as private and irrelevant as any masturbatory fantasy.

    I now see Aladdin has made a similar point above (children's clothes catalogue). OH WELL.

    There's two things wrong - there's nothing with taking pictures/films of your own kid.

    It's stupid to put it up on a website.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    I don't consider it porn because the child isn't being abused or taken advantage of.

    It can however be of use to paedophiles who just want to see a naked baby so I can understand it's removal.

    so a shoe being modelled should be removed because a person with a foot fetish would find it arousing


    should all children clothes catolgues be banned?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have took look at the context of any situation... parents with photos of their young kids in the bath is perfectly normal as it is a reminder in later life of good times gone past... but taking those same photos for sexual gratification can never be seen as acceptable in our society.... same photo, very different context. People and children do need to be protected but political correctness often outstrips common sense nowadays which is an indictment and a shame on modern life...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so a shoe being modelled should be removed because a person with a foot fetish would find it arousing


    should all children clothes catolgues be banned?

    Ah fuck up ya dick.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can understand why people would think it inappropriate, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous tbh. Sure, people who are sexually attracted to young children will like looking at pictures of young naked children, but really, so what? Even if they are, what does it matter if the child is not being harmed and is not being photographed deliberately for sexual arousal.

    It's only considered "stupid" to put it up on a website because of all the idiots who decide to make it their issue when it has nothing at all to do with them. It's not harming anyone, and it's perfectly innocent, so why are third parties getting involved? Because some paedo somewhere might possibly get off on it? So what.

    Interesting that people mention clothes catalogues though- now most underwear and swimwear for children isn't modelled, just in case some paedo has a tommy tank and sticks the pages together. It's stupid.

    The law actually puts images of children into five categories, and if you just have naked non-sexual images of children then you're not committing an offence. But, as usual, if some nosy busybody makes a complaint the police have to investigate it, even if everyone knows it's stupid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's two things wrong - there's nothing with taking pictures/films of your own kid.

    It's stupid to put it up on a website.


    It shouldn't be though. You should be able to do whatever the fuck you like with your own perfectly innocent photos or videos of your kid.

    Kids first steps video? Should we put that up? I don't see why not. Could be some family and friends interested. But - uh-oh - the kid was in the middle of getting changed and didn't have any clothes on at the time. Oh no, it's suddenly "child porn" if that goes online.

    What a crok. People need to stop judging society as a whole by the behaviour of its LCDs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not classed as child porn, BUT because of the ammount of 'peodophiles' on the internet they could use it for their own purposes *pukes*.
    unfortunately in this day and age children need to be protected from these people and submiting any kind of pictures/videos with nude children is considered unsafe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can find proper cghild pronography within about 5 seconds on google, let alone on the seedier newsgroups, so why on earth would someone look for a toddler dancing?

    And even if they were, so what if the paedophile enjoys it? It's not doing anyone any harm.

    It's not a good idea to post personal info on the net for other reasons, but not that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the ammount of 'peodophiles' on the internet

    :confused:

    How many do you think that there are?
    unfortunately in this day and age

    How is this day and age different from 30 years ago when I was a child?
    submiting any kind of pictures/videos with nude children is considered unsafe.

    Unsafe for whom?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just a quick question. At what point in time did nudity automatically become sexual?

    As Kermit says, the only issue is with paedophiles looking at pictures of children is the creation of demand for pictures of naked children. No other harm occurs from it. Therefore only pictures taken for the specific reason of supplying this demand are incidents of children being abused for sexual gratification, and so can be classed as child porn. Trying to police anything that a paedophile could potentially get off on is ridiculous, because the thoughts of the paedophile by themselves aren't harming anyone.

    The best one was a display at an art gallery, which was accused of being child porn. Can anyone honestly picture some paedophile cracking one off in the middle of an art gallery?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    I don't see what's unnatural about a dancing naked baby. The perversion is in the mind of the beholder.

    Well to me seeing a naked child in public now, even on a beach, would make me feel uncomfortable, like it was wrong and I could get in trouble for just being on the same beach. Although, in todays culture, maybe I would! But, back to my point, I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels like this. Yea, I was in the nud when I was little, but I've been in my family's house when a little un has decided to wander unclothed and it does make me feel really uncomfortable.

    But yea, the swedish police censored the naked dancing baby apparently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Putting 'naked' toddler/child photos online

    Hi Everyone,

    Firstly, I apologize for bumping this thread but I really want to add my tuppence worth here as I have fairly strong feelings about this.

    We had some friends of my parents round at my parents house yesterday who have a 3 y.o. granddaughter we'll call 'R'. Among the photos they brought over was one where 'R' was playing on a beach bottomless. The photo was taken with a digital camera and they showed us the picture which was of course perfectly natural and innocent. However, they said that there was no way they'd have taken a photo like this today with an ordinary film camera to be developed due to the level of child porn hysteria and the possibility of getting into hot water with the authorities.

    I feel that it is a sad indictment of our times that what a generation ago would have been construed a completely innocent photo without a second thought, is now considered child porn. This makes me very angry and frustrated especially now when I hear that parents sometimes can't even photograph their own children at an event or show - It's bloody ludicrous!

    Now, I'm all for the protection of our children from perverts and paedophiles and it also makes me sick when I hear children who are abused sexually and physically by these monsters; the recent news stories where the perpetrators have got away with abusing children and/or trading in disturbing pornographic images makes me equally angry. I consider the removal of a child's innocence a horrendously awful thing to do.

    I personally enjoy digital photography and although I'm no expert I like to photograph anything from buildings and places to scenery and people. I also enjoy commenting and reviewing other peoples photos of similar things and there are some very good photo sharing websites out there such as photobucket and Picasaweb.

    Now there are people who also sometimes post innocent photos of their toddlers and up to 4 year old children online of which one or two of them are naked. I don't see anything wrong with that provided the photo is completely innocent and ideally not a front view exposure which should be discouraged as innappropriate by the website owners - many people feel that bare-bottom child shots are cute enough anyway. With regards to other people downloading other ppls naked child photos then the person downloading should first be registered to that photo site and visitors should not be able to download at all. Also, not only should the interested downloader be registered but contact the owner of the photo to ask permission to download the photo, provide their full name, date of birth, country of origin and agree to a declaration of trust that the photo will not be shared with anyone either electronically or non-electronically by anyone and only viewed by the downloader.

    I just feel that the above idea would not only protect the children of these photos but also the legitimate downloader from getting into trouble, however slight, from a misunderstanding with the law.

    Thanks for reading and sorry this is rather long.

    David
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whoever posts up videos of children dancing in the nude is a first-grade twat. No wonder it was removed. I don't think I have much more to say than that.

    EDIT: Having come back to this over 8 hours later, I've just noticed this is a thread from 3 years ago...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's what children do.

    That a few deviants might obtain sexual gratification shouldn't prevent you from sharing your delight in your children with others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Well to me seeing a naked child in public now, even on a beach, would make me feel uncomfortable, like it was wrong and I could get in trouble for just being on the same beach. Although, in todays culture, maybe I would! But, back to my point, I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels like this. Yea, I was in the nud when I was little, but I've been in my family's house when a little un has decided to wander unclothed and it does make me feel really uncomfortable.

    But yea, the swedish police censored the naked dancing baby apparently.

    I can see exactly what you're saying Shyboy and I think this whole stupid child porn paranoia is making innocent people feel uncomfortable either playing with or seeing young children naked.

    I enjoy photography, whether it is taking photos of scenery, buildings, places or people. I'm no expert or anything but I also enjoy reviewing the photos of others. I'm registered onto a photo sharing website at the moment and have added a user to my favourites. I've been reviewing some of this user's photos but there is one album of theirs which has a lot of photos of their nearly 3 year old daughter. Everyone of the photos has been shot well and the imagery and exposure is good and there are 2 completely innocent and beautiful photos which feature the little girl being carried naked on her father's back. I would like to add that ALL the photos in this user's album are in the public domain. The thing is I feel really awkward about commenting on the 'piggyback' photos for fear of being thought of as a pervert or paedophile by others and I even feel really uncomfortable about reviewing the other photos which feature their daughter too. This is just crazy as I can't really understand how people get off on these photos in the first place.

    If you read slightly further up this thread you'll see I've written an idea about downloading photos of children from photo sharing websites which hopefully should put paedophiles off from downloading them and not innocent photography lovers and normal people.

    David
Sign In or Register to comment.