NationStates Jolt Archive

My co-worker and I discussed this the other day. He said he would be in favour of say 15-17 yr olds should be able to pose nude, non-explicit, nor hardcore, just full frontal. He said that this would help for all those people out there that have tendencies to watch child porn, or are addicted to it. I really don't quite agree with him. I can't really see any benefits from this. Do you?

edit- Let me clarify. He said this in response to someone we knew that was arrested for making, and distributing Child porn. He said, that these people arrested for such crimes could be deterred if they allow somewhat more innoncent photography occur of frull fontal, underage teens.

And what about the models themselves? Are they really old enough to make that kind of decision? To expose themselves, have their pictures exploited, and have that haunt them forever, possibly have those pictures used against them later? Just so it could possibly sate the lust of people who generally find 15 - 17 year olds too mature for their tastes anyway? I'm not seeing the benefit here.

Nope. 15-17 is still to young to be involved in a career like that, especially with the risk of parents exploiting their children for monetary gain. That would be completely unethical and, just frankly, sick.

Aside from this, it's still my belief that people who respond to child pornography should not be encouraged to continue in this "hobby" in any way; I don't think that engaging in that sort of behavior helps stifle people's urges to act in the real world at all.

And what about the models themselves? Are they really old enough to make that kind of decision? To expose themselves, have their pictures exploited, and have that haunt them forever, possibly have those pictures used against them later? Just so it could possibly sate the lust of people who generally find 15 - 17 year olds too mature for their tastes anyway? I'm not seeing the benefit here.


Exactly. There is no benefit, but he keeps swearing up and down that it would help.

15-17 yo are too old to be child porn, they are too developed by then and if you are going to go after that you might as well just look for some regular porn

Exactly. There is no benefit, but he keeps swearing up and down that it would help.
Uh-huh. Well, I won't speculate as to what motivates him.

No!

15-17 yo are too old to be child porn, they are too developed by then and if you are going to go after that you might as well just look for some regular porn
That's kind of what I think too, though to be honest, I don't have facts to back me up on this...but it is certainly my feeling that pedophiles go for the sexually immature...of which 15 - 17 year olds rarely are. Not that they are mature enough for sex (or inherently NOT mature enough for sex because of an arbitrary age of majority), but just that they tend to be more physically developed than pedophiles want. IMO.

Uh-huh. Well, I won't speculate as to what motivates him.


hehe. I had the same thought myself ;)

That's kind of what I think too, though to be honest, I don't have facts to back me up on this...but it is certainly my feeling that pedophiles go for the sexually immature...of which 15 - 17 year olds rarely are. Not that they are mature enough for sex (or inherently NOT mature enough for sex because of an arbitrary age of majority), but just that they tend to be more physically developed than pedophiles want. IMO.

Exactamundo

And yet, we have something similar already...just look at fashion magazines, makeup ads and so forth...a lot of those models are ridiculously young, and made up to seem older...it's not uncommon to have a 15 year old modelling swimwear.

I remember when a friend of my father first saw his daughter's modelling photos. She was sucking very suggestively on a lollipop, and dressed quite provocatively while balancing on a beach ball. She was 13 and she looked 20.

And yet, we have something similar already...just look at fashion magazines, makeup ads and so forth...a lot of those models are ridiculously young, and made up to seem older...it's not uncommon to have a 15 year old modelling swimwear.

I remember when a friend of my father first saw his daughter's modelling photos. She was sucking very suggestively on a lollipop, and dressed quite provocatively while balancing on a beach ball. She was 13 and she looked 20.


wow...I wish i was 13 again :p Just kidding. It is very disturbing though to think about how we push sex onto children so young now a days

He said he would be in favour of say 15-17 yr olds should be able to pose nude, non-explicit, nor hardcore, just full frontal.
That's already legal in most western countries, regardless of the age of the subject.

If the pictures aren't sexual, they're not porn.

That's already legal in most western countries, regardless of the age of the subject.

If the pictures aren't sexual, they're not porn.
But generally not full frontal.

That's already legal in most western countries, regardless of the age of the subject.

If the pictures aren't sexual, they're not porn.
He would advocate using the nudity in a sexual context, however, which would probably stir up some legal trouble.

But generally not full frontal.
You're even in Canada. You get this stuff at Chapters. Or from Amazon.ca.

I don't think so, partly because the models are too young to make the decision to pose nude for such a purpose (sexual setting), and partly because it won't have any other effect then simply starting a slippery slope-problem. (Why not 14? 13? 12?)

You're even in Canada. You get this stuff at Chapters. Or from Amazon.ca.
? Can you describe an example of a 15 - 17 year old depicted in full frontal nudity? In Canada? Legally?

There are already a niche market of models who look underage but have reached the age of majority. This has not curbed child porn. I cant see how pseudo porn using children would be more likely to curb child porn. I can see how imprisoning your friend's pal might have slowed it down a tiny bit though.

The children and their ability to choose to take up such a job at such a young age is one issue. The greater issue at hand, however, is, in my mind, the parents of these children. Allowing parents to exploit their children's sexuality for monetary purposes would deal a crippling blow to ethical standards in any country. The utmost concern here should be two questions involving the parents of children posing for such pictures: 1) is it right for them to gain financial success from selling their children's bodies to companies who would market their photographs for fulfilling adults' sexual needs, and 2) can these type of people properly raise children if they find it to ethical to do the former?

Bottom line: kids need to be protected from their parents.

Actually, here it doesn't count as child pornography if the adolescents depicted are "developed," meaning they have gone through most of puberty. And for it to be child pornography, at all, the pictures have to be of a pornographic nature - just naked children is not enough, seeing as that would criminalise every family album in the country.

Ephebophilia is completely different from paedophilia, and seeing as one becomes "legal" at 15 here, drawing a line at 18 would be quite unworkable and, well, duplicitous.

Ephebophilia is completely different from paedophilia, and seeing as one becomes "legal" at 15 here, drawing a line at 18 would be quite unworkable and, well, duplicitous.
Legal in what sense? Here, they would still be considered a minor, and therefore there would be minor-related issues surrounding their nude photography, sexual or otherwise. Not being of the age of majority would not however mean that it would be illegal for them to have sex.

? Can you describe an example of a 15 - 17 year old depicted in full frontal nudity? In Canada? Legally?
I don't see why I have to do your web searches for you.

Photographers like David Hamilton and Jock Sturges have been mentioned in previous threads.

Legal in what sense? Here, they would still be considered a minor, and therefore there would be minor-related issues surrounding their nude photography, sexual or otherwise. Not being of the age of majority would not however mean that it would be illegal for them to have sex.
The age of consent in Canada is 14, but you can't have sex on camera until you're 18. The question is whether the two should have different ages.

Legal in what sense?

They become "legal" to have sex with. It would be silly to have a law on one hand that says "you may fuck them," and then another one that says "but you may not fap at them."

Here, they would still be considered a minor, and therefore there would be minor-related issues surrounding their nude photography, sexual or otherwise. Not being of the age of majority would not however mean that it would be illegal for them to have sex.

Them, but the adult having sex with them? Does it suffice that the pictures just be of naked children, or do they have to be pornographic? Because, you wouldn't believe how much my mother has spread pictures of a young me naked in the bath, and she's no molester, now, is she?