Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The saying goes "You cannot define child porn, but you know it when you see it". And if the tittie pic was meant for titillation and sent to whomever, it is pornographic.
Non lactating breasts are sexual. Period.
I don't think "babies first bath pictures" are porn, nor do I believe a child/ minor should be charged with child porn for having his girlfriend or some equally young girl taking pictures of herself. I do say that if I or any other adult was in possession of those pictures of a 14 year old IS child porn.
Breast are sexually arousing because its wired into men for propagation. Larger breast means the woman is able to produce more milk and is potentially more fertile. So while I don't think a woman should HAVE to wear clothes, but than she also shouldn't get surprised when some sick-o tries to rape her.
That's stupid, that's like saying if you drive around in a fancy car you no longer get to complain about being robbed.
Besides you can find cases of women being raped while wearing burkhas
Though I know that I, as young man who choses to dress the way I do, I'm perceived as suspect by police. Is it right? No. Is it reality? Yes. She can say she was victimized and rightfully so. In the same breath though I would also assert that there are sick people out there.
The saying goes "You cannot define child porn, but you know it when you see it". And if the tittie pic was meant for titillation and sent to whomever, it is pornographic.
Non lactating breasts are sexual. Period.
That's stupid, that's like saying if you drive around in a fancy car you no longer get to complain about being robbed.
Besides you can find cases of women being raped while wearing burkhas
Though I know that I, as young man who choses to dress the way I do, I'm perceived as suspect by police. Is it right? No. Is it reality? Yes. She can say she was victimized and rightfully so. In the same breath though I would also assert that there are sick people out there.
Now, hold on just a second- it is YOU who is claiming that attractive people "attract" sexual violence simply by being attractive. You seem to think that it is merely the way you look that attracts police attention, but honestly, even very well dressed men attract police attention when they are acting suspicious!!
Also, you should be made aware that sexual violence has very little to do with sexual attraction and has much more to do with power and control, the act of powering over someone. So, a pretty young woman walking around topless is no more at risk of being raped than some dog ugly old lady doing the same exact thing.
Breasts are NOT sex organs, and showering is NOT sexual.
The saying goes "You cannot define child porn, but you know it when you see it". And if the tittie pic was meant for titillation and sent to whomever, it is pornographic.
Non lactating breasts are sexual. Period.
So does that mean you wish to treat it the same way we treat videos of children being molested?
The saying goes "You cannot define child porn, but you know it when you see it". And if the tittie pic was meant for titillation and sent to whomever, it is pornographic.
Non lactating breasts are sexual. Period.
So does that mean you wish to treat it the same way we treat videos of children being molested?
No. If you read what I wrote previously, I said I do not know what the appropriate consequence should be. Just that there should be one.
I'm sure the court deals differently with molestation pics as well as not treating all defendants the same. As it should.
Though I know that I, as young man who choses to dress the way I do, I'm perceived as suspect by police. Is it right? No. Is it reality? Yes. She can say she was victimized and rightfully so. In the same breath though I would also assert that there are sick people out there.
Now, hold on just a second- it is YOU who is claiming that attractive people "attract" sexual violence simply by being attractive. You seem to think that it is merely the way you look that attracts police attention, but honestly, even very well dressed men attract police attention when they are acting suspicious!!
Also, you should be made aware that sexual violence has very little to do with sexual attraction and has much more to do with power and control, the act of powering over someone. So, a pretty young woman walking around topless is no more at risk of being raped than some dog ugly old lady doing the same exact thing.
I think that based on how I look, people will judge me differently. So while someone looking suspicious will attract attention regardless of their dress, I have a higher probability of being in contact by the police based on how I act and dress. You're conjecture can't compare to my personal experience on this matter.
Rape happens frequently at bars at collages for example. Those victims are usually attractive women now if that same woman was in a bar topless I would think that the chances of her being drugged and raped are higher.
[/QUOTE]It is man hating. It is not only men that get upset at the exposure of tits. Women get just as upset. I actually agree that Europe has the right idea here though. It is a big deal because of the taboos placed on it in society. However, it is not just tits that are openly displayed in public there; it is the whole body to include both sexes. Even then, people are still required to cover up and public indecency is still a crime. I can also tell you that as a man, the amount of tits will not diminish their allure. That is just the way it works biologically speaking.
So what?? What is the danger involved with exposing certain body parts?? Just because you find something to be sexy (and I find mens chests to be just as hot, myself, not that you would understand that) doesnt mean that someone else should have to cover it up. Even having ankles showing is considered taboo for muslims, but you don't see us forcing everyone to cover their ankles and legs just because some people might get upset over it. That is just the way it works, in America.
You misunderstand what I was getting at here. It matters who took the picture (adult or child) and why it was taken (sexual exploration/send to boyfriend or for pornography reasons). That is what is important. I believe even a child should be prosecuted if they were taking the pictures and distributing them as porn.
You are talking about breasts... Breasts being bare in an image do not make the image pornographic. A picture of a girl stepping out of the shower is not PORN, even if she was completely naked.
Lets be clear here, if the picture of the child getting out of the shower was taken and distributed by an adult then he/she would defiantly need to be prosecuted even if they are just tits and the rest was covered up.
WHY?? There is nothing sexual about taking a shower. Why not prosecute book authors for child sexual abuse, for the way they show images of bare breasts and penises and vaginas as well. YOU are making a showering teenager's picture sexual.. Have some self control.
Twenty percent of respondents in a survey last fall of 653 people between the ages 13 and 19, conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy, said they had sent or Web-posted nude or semi-nude photos or videos of themselves.
The bills call for the attorney general's office to develop a sexting curriculum in cooperation with the judiciary. The course would focus on legal consequences of transmitting explicit photos as well as nonlegal consequences, such as the effect on relationships and the loss of job opportunities. Also covered would be the unique nature of cyberspace, whose infinite audience can create unforeseen, long-term consequences for sharing of sexually explicit materials, and the link between bullying and sharing of explicit materials.
County prosecutors would have the discretion to divert into the program any minors charged with distribution of nude photos under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4, endangering the welfare of a child. Only juveniles who have no prior record, were unaware their actions constituted a criminal offense and are likely to be deterred from future offenses by completing the program would be eligible.
Lampitt introduced the sexting measure as part of a package of three bills.
Another bill, A-4068 , pending in the Assembly Education Committee, would require schools to annually disseminate, by whatever means they deem appropriate, information to students in grades 6 through 12 on the hazards of electronic dissemination of sexually explicit images. An identical bill, S-2923 (Beach), is before the Senate Education Committee.
So does that mean you wish to treat it the same way we treat videos of children being molested?
No. If you read what I wrote previously, I said I do not know what the appropriate consequence should be. Just that there should be one.
I'm sure the court deals differently with molestation pics as well as not treating all defendants the same. As it should.
Well from what I understand the child porn laws are written as if they would only be dealing with molestation pics.
Although I have to ask why the fuck should there be consequences of someone taking a picture of themselves without any coercion (or offer) from anyone else?
It seems like such a non-crime and a big waste of time for the courts to bother with.
No. If you read what I wrote previously, I said I do not know what the appropriate consequence should be. Just that there should be one.
I'm sure the court deals differently with molestation pics as well as not treating all defendants the same. As it should.
Well from what I understand the child porn laws are written as if they would only be dealing with molestation pics.
Although I have to ask why the fuck should there be consequences of someone taking a picture of themselves without any coercion (or offer) from anyone else?
It seems like such a non-crime and a big waste of time for the courts to bother with.
Problem is it develops a photogenic genre that somebody in a capitalist society would want to take advantage of which leads to abuse.
No need in priming the pump when you don't have to. Illegal drugs tend to lead to other crimes.....this will as well.
It is man hating. It is not only men that get upset at the exposure of tits. Women get just as upset. I actually agree that Europe has the right idea here though. It is a big deal because of the taboos placed on it in society. However, it is not just tits that are openly displayed in public there; it is the whole body to include both sexes. Even then, people are still required to cover up and public indecency is still a crime. I can also tell you that as a man, the amount of tits will not diminish their allure. That is just the way it works biologically speaking.
So what?? What is the danger involved with exposing certain body parts?? Just because you find something to be sexy (and I find mens chests to be just as hot, myself, not that you would understand that) doesnt mean that someone else should have to cover it up. Even having ankles showing is considered taboo for muslims, but you don't see us forcing everyone to cover their ankles and legs just because some people might get upset over it. That is just the way it works, in America.
You are talking about breasts... Breasts being bare in an image do not make the image pornographic. A picture of a girl stepping out of the shower is not PORN, even if she was completely naked.
You have to cover it up because it is the law and considered pornographic. If you think that nudists should walk among us then start another thread and take it out of here. The OP is not on the definition of porn but the prosecution of it in its current form.
It is NOT porn!!! There are statues and paintings all over the world of women with bare chests.. IN CHURCHES TOO. There are even <shock> images of men with their own penises showing. If it is not SEXUAL it is not pornographic.. There is a difference!! The human body uncovered is not some kind of exclusively DIRTY thing. Stop trying to portray women's breasts to be DIRTY. That is not what those pictures were about, and you need to stop making this into some kind of steamy dirty seedy little sex ring issue when all it is about are a couple of girls taking innocent nude pictures of themselves!!!!Lets be clear here, if the picture of the child getting out of the shower was taken and distributed by an adult then he/she would defiantly need to be prosecuted even if they are just tits and the rest was covered up.
WHY?? There is nothing sexual about taking a shower. Why not prosecute book authors for child sexual abuse, for the way they show images of bare breasts and penises and vaginas as well. YOU are making a showering teenager's picture sexual.. Have some self control.
I am not making it sexual, society is. Bare chested IS porn PERIOD. That is the way the law is written and that is the way society has deemed it. DO NOT CONTINUE THIS INANE DETRACTION FROM THE OP. I will not get in a semantics argument with you because you refuse to accept reality.
JD if you cannot tell what porn is then you are to morally bankrupt or outright lying and it is impossible to continue any meaningful debate.
To perpetrating other crimes This is a false argument. Besides the total lack of any evidence here, there is no reason that exploring your sexuality (a key with many of these issues) and becoming a criminal.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether children can be charged with possession of child pornography for having naked pictures of themselves
Appeals court to decide if 'sexting' is child porn
...we had to destroy the village to save it...
