There’s legal or softcore child porn (CP) and illegal or hardcore CP. Most people are idiots and don’t know the difference, including this fool who reported a bunch of perfectly legal sites.
Bottom line is creepy pictures of little girls don’t cut it. There’s plenty of that out there. It’s hard to describe but it’s pretty little girls often in some rather skimpy clothes. They are often posing seductively and sometimes they have their tongue hanging out of the side of their mouth. Gross, huh? Sure, but it’s all completely legal.
If they have their clothes on, it’s pretty much legal. Nevertheless, there have been some recent very bad rulings that found that even pics of clothed little girls could be CP. These rulings were very bad because just looking at the rulings, it would be very hard to say exactly what is legal and what is illegal.
Even nudes of little girls are often legal if they look natural enough. It’s disturbing but it’s quite legal. There are nudist sites all over the Net with pics of kids, teenagers, and adults bare-ass naked. All completely legal.
To be illegal it has to appear posed, unnatural, uncomfortable, a position the child was unlikely to get into on their own, and most importantly, must display lascivious display of the genitalia. This is called the Dost Test. The Dost Test has never even been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, so we don’t have any idea how constitutional it is. It resulted from a case in California that laid out exactly what CP had to contain in order to be illegal and not simply child erotica, which is 100% legal.
That’s for children’s pics with no sex involved. Once you get sex involved, it’s a whole new ballgame, and any photos of kids having sex, either with themselves (masturbation photos are illegal), each other, or with adults, are absolutely illegal. They can’t even be posed with an adult looking like they are about ready to have sex. I could describe pics like that I saw and reported, but I don’t want to gross you out.
CP cartoons (including manga and hentai) and 3D are mostly legal. In some places like Germany they are illegal. In other places like Japan they are completely legal. In the US, it’s mixed. Apparently it’s illegal to create them but it’s not illegal to possess them, as if that makes sense. The clothed models have been a mess ever since the terrible Black Cat Scans case. In that case, the men who created the website went to prison, but the 25 million who went to the site and downloaded the pics got off scot free.
It’s generally considered a miscarriage of justice, especially because when those men, who happened to be of a certain (((type))), made that site, they checked out the law and figured that the site was completely legal. And it was. But after the site had been up a few years, the government decided absolutely criminally to try to redefine CP to include the Black Cat Scans which had previously been excluded. So those guys got blindsided. It’s as if spitting on the sidewalk has always been legal. So you spit on the sidewalk from time to time.
One day the Feds decide to reinterpret some vague law called “Antisocial Behavior” to include “Spitting on the Sidewalk,” although that act had never been included before. So you get taken to court and the Feds make the case that under their new interpretation of the Antisocial Behavior law, they now include Spitting on the Sidewalk, though it was always legal before. They try the case and some hack judge convicts you for a crime you weren’t even aware was illegal.
Bottom line is you can possess all the clothed model pics you want to (But why would you want to?) but I guess you can’t make websites putting them up there and charging people to see them. I guess.
Clothed models are usually little girls around pubertal age (11-13) dressed up in some pretty dirty clothes (like lingerie) and posed in some pretty dirty positions (guess). They’re creepy as all get out, but it’s not CP. Most of the girls were from impoverished families in rural Russia. In every case, their mothers got them involved in the modeling.
A number of the girls got followed up and by 18-20, almost all of them had married the local rural Russian thug and already had at least one kid. Some were single Moms already. There was an uproar when the men went to prison. 20-40 former models all made videos testifying to the fact that they were not harmed at all by this modeling and how well the photographer had treated them.
The photographer had treated all of the girls and their mothers very well and there had been no sexual behavior at all between him and the girls. The girls and their mothers were all very fond of him. The videos are still sitting up on Youtube if you are interested. It’s a pretty sorry case all around.
Central to weird CP theory is that CP is the portrayal of a crime and hence is illegitimate. Except shooting clothed model pics isn’t a crime, so strike that one out.
Next is the argument that the girls are harmed by being photographed even if there is no sex involved. This applies to pics of girls alone nude and posed in various ways. Merely by getting posed that way and having photos taken and certainly if they know the photos are on the Net for anyone to see is enough to cause harm. That’s an interesting argument.
But for the clothed models, the photographs were basically legal, the girls were clothed, and no girl was harmed by getting pics taken of her.
Where’s the crime?
Next we see how CP law keeps creeping upward and upward to encompass more and more things.
No crime? No matter. Girls not harmed at all and quite willing? No matter.
Because a brand new idea has been thrown out. The concept of a record of a crime and harm to the girls is dead because now we have new reasons!
The new reasons say that “CP” is bad even if there is no crime, no girls were harmed because the material is being used by pedophiles to masturbate to. Which I guess is evil or something. This is how they roped in the cartoons and the 3D stuff. No crime of course. And no harm of course. Hell, there are not even any real humans to be victims of a crime or to be harmed! The things being victimized by crime and harmed are pictures, drawings, and 3D graphics. They’re not even real people! They’re completely fake!
But now they’re illegal too because they turn pedophiles on. That seems a dubious reason to make something illegal.
How bout if a man takes photos of boys walking to and from school?
How about a man who orders a video of little girls during majorette exercizes?
And how about if these men are pedophiles who use these perfectly harmless photographs to masturbate to pedo fantasies? So what? What’s wrong with that? But, guess what? Feds (FBI jerkoffs) have arrested men for possessing photos they took of boys walking to school and for ordering videos of girls doing majorette exercizes.
Because pedos were using them to jerk off. That misinterpretation of the law seems very wrong, sorry. That’s absurd. Also, you are arresting men for thought crimes. After all, the photos and videos are only illegal because of the thoughts that go through these men’s heads when they look at them.
Ridiculous. If I look at those same videos (not sure why I would but anyway) I would most certainly not experience sexual fantasies about either the girls or the boys. So I get to possess this material because it doesn’t turn me on (because I don’t have illegal thoughts), whereas these pedos go to prison for possessing the same material, apparently because they have illegal thoughts while looking at the material.
Back to the female who got solo photos of her taken as a child. What if the female is not aware that her pics are out there? People are looking at them and she hasn’t a clue? How is this automagically harming her? Osmosis? Via another dimension? Some psychic mechanism. Clue me. She’s not being harmed by the people looking at her pics.
Another argument is that even if the female is not aware her pics are out there, the mere memory of her having those pics taken as a girl is going to continue to harm her, assuming she even remembers such things. That’s a better argument, but that harm is going to take place whether the pics went up in flames and are gone or whether they are in 10,000 places on the Net, right?
Als,o believe it or not, I met a woman who was molested and later had statutory rape committed against her by her uncle and his friends from ages 12-17. They took videos of the whole thing. She has reconciled herself to what was originally a trauma by deciding that this was fun and it turns her on.
She’s actually looking for the videos now, which seems a bit dangerous. Well, there’s one woman who had pics taken at age 12 and doesn’t care. Furthermore, she presents an interesting case. Yes, the videos portray a crime. Sure, she was legal from 16-17 so all this sex was legal at that point. But shooting videos of it wasn’t. She was still underage and although she can consent to sex, she can’t consent to making porn, which is probably a good idea.
We need an 18 to do porn law because as soon as we start lowering that number, the Net will be flooded with the newly legal girls. Now you can do porn at 17? Fine. Except in a week the damned Internet will be flooded with “17 year old girls doing hardcore porn!!!” Because pornographers have no basement on sleazy. They’ll go as low as you let them. I don’t particularly care about teenagers making this stuff consensually and people looking at it at home. But keep it off the damned Internet!
But the girl was going along with it quite happily, so one wonders what the big deal is. Further, the girl is not being “revictimized” by this videos being out there because by her own admission, she likes these videos.
I don’t know what to say. Considering her age, most of those videos could well be floating around anyway. After all, hardcore with 14-17 year old girls is said to be everywhere on the Net, mostly unlabeled. No one seems to care much. But the early stuff is creepy. I don’t want videos of grown men having sex with 12-13 year old girls legally floating around on the Net. I don’t care if she likes them. I don’t care if she didn’t get hurt and isn’t getting hurt by them. I just don’t want that crap out there on the Net. Maybe if you keep it your drive to yourself, it might be ok. But I don’t want that garbage floating around legally.
What about the case of creep shots and surreptitiously taken photos of little girls and teenage girls. That stuff’s out there too. In this case, the female doesn’t even know anyone took pics of her. Furthermore, she probably doesn’t even know if her pics are floating around. It’s really hard to make a case that she got harmed at all by some creep using a hidden camera. Sure it’s an invasion of privacy but the person doesn’t even know their privacy got invaded, so what of it? I guess it probably ought to be legal but I’ll be the first to say the pics are creepy and uncool.