Jump to content

Talk:Child erotica/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Lolita Problem" at the bottom

Second link also broken..... Aurora sword 06:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people going on about something

Don't delete the "naked" things. Pret art refers mainly to the naked form of this art. And I provided some examples of sites. So don't delete again without asking.

  • Yeah, except that at least one of those sites explicitly falls under all countries' definitions of child pornography. I've removed one site that didn't work and one that was blatant child porn that's illegal in at least Germany, the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia due to "laviscous display of the genitals" (which all ban). - DNewhall

Is it possible to get that site removed from the history of this article, or to even report it to the authorities? 210.50.202.25 10:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've done this with a selective delete. It also removed a few minor edits - I couldn't do otherwise without distorting the edit history. Basically, I've taken the article back to 20 April, but I have restored some corrections since then -- sannse (talk) 09:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Oooooh, laviscous display of the genitals!!!, laviscous display of the genitals!!!, laviscous display of the genitals!!!, help me mammy, help me, these bad guys are displaying unmoral material on the web!!!, I'm grown up but these things affect me!!!".

Let me tell you something, DNewasshole: these sites are perfectly accepted by the law, and they're aproved by the US and Europe laws.

In parts of Europe, maybe. In the U.S., U.K, and Canada, no. Read Protection_of_Children_Act_1978, Child pornography, this and this.

In fact, in some states of the US and Germany, the legal age is 16.

Legal age of consent to sex in the U.S. varies by state and yes, it can be 16 but the legal age for appearing in pornography is federally mandated at 18. That's why Traci Lords videos were banned, because she wasn't 18. See [1]

In another places is still (I repeat, still) 18 (because they are a lot of countries and organizations pressuring to update the laws and make it 14), but if you want to have sex with underage girls over the age of 12, it is not illegal if they agree with it.

No, almost all countries have laws regarding age of consent and even then that doesn't mean pornography depicting them is legal.

What is still illegal is to takes pictures or videotape it. Is not illegal to have such material, but it is illegal to promote it or distribute it.

Nope, possessing the material is more than enough to get you 10 years in a federal prison in the U.S and Canada. See [2].

But, if you don't know what pornography is, I'll tell you: is when they fuck, when they suck dicks, etc... Not when they are just naked.

Wrong again, see [3] for the Canadian legal definition and [4] for the U.S. one.

If erotic material of underage girls is child porn, films like Leon, Lolita, Maladolescenza, The Annunciation, Tom et Lola, and several more, are all child pornography. So stop claming things like if you knew something about it. Things like "explicitly falls under all countries' definitions of child pornography, blah blah blah mambo jambo bullshit".

No, erotic material of underage girls in not necessarily porn but pictures of naked girls typically is. Again, see [5] and [6].

In case you don't know it, girls aged 14 or less fuck like bitches, wether you like it or not. But, according to your laws, does it means that if I'm over 18 and want to fuck with a 17 years old I'm going to jail? No!, it's not like this!

I don't care if you like to have sex with little girls but if you're breaking age of consent laws then yes it is illegal.

I'm tired of seeing girls aged 15, 13, etc., dating, sleeping, etc., being girlfriends with boys over 18, over 21, and over 25 too. And nobody does nothing, because these are the standards of today. You can live in the caverns, you can curse, scream, prey or do what the fuck you want to do, but there's nothing you can do about it. So why the hell you worry about pictures of naked girls when they are things that can bother you more? (not because they are things to worry about, because they are perfectly natural in the 21st century).

The issues isn't whether or not I have a problem with it the issue is that it's illegal in all english speaking countries. When you have blatantly illegal material on a public encyclopedia that's typically a bad thing...

But if you want to fight, because you think "Hey! Look at me! I'm a hero!, I'm a fighter!, I fight for my ideals!, I'll make a better world!, I'll change people!, blah blah blah" (better for you to say "I must get a life" instead of all the rest of the crap you think), but, I repeat, if you anyway want to report sites, here I made for you a be-e-eatiful list of pretty sites for you to report: <REMOVED LIST OF LINKS> (and so on; the list goes on, but I'm tired) But, anyway, let me advice you: Authorities (ooooh, the authorities, boooooo!!!) won't do a thing. These sites are legally aproved, they are here to stay, forever, and there's nothing you can do about it.

That material is legal where those sites have their servers. However, is it illegal for a Canadian, U.S., U.K., New Zealand, or Australian citizen to view that material? Yes, yes it is.

So you must deal with it, and put your rules book wherever you please, Mr.-Knew-All, Mr.DNewhole, New Asshole. And don't bother about answering, because I won't return (or will I?). Bwahahahahaha, I'm baaaaaaad, I'm baaaaaad!!! People like you make me laugh... If you want to answer and say things like "grow up, you are a dick, a pervert and / or a ruuuude person (choose the option you like)... I'll report you... I'll tell my mam you insulted me"... I will laugh more at you (not with you; at you).

As anyone can easily see from the links and information I provided that you are, in fact, wrong and those links should have been removed. Sorry. - DNewhall

So change the name of the article. Because Pret Art was a naked girls magazine from Russia. And the sites provide information on which you can see they are legal according to the USA laws. Naked girls is not child porn. Is the same that nudist pictures are.

Two issues: First, the article deals with a genre of art called pret art. If you want to make an entry devoted to the magazine (called "Pret Art (magazine)" or something) feel free to do so, but this article deals with the genre of art not the magazine. Second, yes, pictures of underage naked girls are not necessarily child porn. However, sites with pictures that focus on their genitals or are overtly sexual are typically considered child porn in almost all English speaking countries. This is not always the case in non-english speaking countries however, Russia and Romania have laxer laws on this which is why most stuff considered child porn in the U.S. and other countries can be legally distributed on sites run from these countries. Some of the sites you posted (despite being written in English) were run on hosts in other countries and featured pictures that are considered child porn here. Putting links to those sites in, say, the Russian wikipedia would be fine but it is inappropriate for an English one. - DNewhall

OK, I make the article "devoted" to "Pret Art Magazine" (yes, that was the name). I hope it won't be deleted for being "illegal". Bye bye.

OMG! Someone has to report this to the FBI or something.

From child pornography:

Various federal courts in the 1980s and 1990s have concluded that "lewd" or "lascivious" depiction of the genitals does not require the genitals to be uncovered. Thus, for example, a video of underage teenage girls dancing erotically, with multiple close-up shots of their covered genitals, can be considered child porn. United States vs. Knox

At least Wikipedia has to be illegal in the US. So all links are removed. --pippo2001 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Content

The article has very arbitrary divisions and has no mention about the situation in the Ukraine and Russia, where production is not limited. I will try to edit this page with a recent "scandal" that haunted especially the US subscribers of a certain legal porn site as soon as I have time. But nobody editing this page should forget that this is an encyclopedia and external links should be kept on the basis that they present information on the subject. So, no commercial links (like the ones posted here before) should be tolerated. Behemoth

"Child model" not the same as "child modeling"?

Reviewing some of the variants of terms I thought would link here, I found a entry for Child Model that does not correlate with this article. I think that "child model" should redirect here.--Caesius 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Is this article accurate?

Surely the concept of "child modeling" is not solely restricted to child pornography? Is it accurate to say that this term refers to this stuff? A search for "child modeling" in Google shows that of the first 10 links, only 1 of them appears to be about child porn. The rest are about perfectly mainstream and legitimate modelling careers for children. I think this article should be either radically rewritten or simply deleted as POV nonsense. It is a standard rhetorical trick of pro-pedophiles to attempt to redefine normal terms to be about their thing. --Jimbo Wales 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Child pornography? Surely, you of all people would know that this is child glamour photography, Jimbo? ;-)
Anyway, how's that? "Child modeling" is definitely oft-used to denote normal clothing modeling, so I've moved this over here. Erotic child modeling is quite notable, and this has a decent-sized criticism section. If you still feel it's POV, go ahead and fix it. // paroxysm (n) 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just finished setting up separate articles on child modeling and Internet child modeling, and the latter is where the story of Cindy on Oprah needs to go. I've put some of that material there already, along with an outline of how the controversy grew (I blame it on a Wired News article). All of the refernces in this article to non-erotic child modeling can go into one or the other of those other articles. Rompata 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That makes sense I guess. However, one thing that I would like to do, and that I think would be useful, is for 'pedia articles to be more rigid the use and definition of the word "child" in erotic and marginally erotic context. Mixing together 6-year-olds and 17-year-olds confuses the issue, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch we are trying to encourage the word "child" to refer only to pre-adolescents (roughly, persons through age 12) and older persons, who may be styled teens, adolescents, or youth. Would you consider naming your articles "Internet child and teen modeling" etc, or just "Internet teen modeling" if they don't cover pre-adolescents at all, or seperating into two aticles, "Internet child modeling" and "Internet teen modeling". Herostratus 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"Internet child modeling" is clear and succinct. To the law, it makes little difference if the subject are 17 or 7. "Child and Teen" is just needlessly wordy, and does not include 18 or 19 year olds anyway. -Will Beback 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Herostratus, I disagree with this comment:
However, one thing that I would like to do, and that I think would be useful, is for 'pedia articles to be more rigid the use and definition of the word "child" in erotic and marginally erotic context. Mixing together 6-year-olds and 17-year-olds confuses the issue, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch we are trying to encourage the word "child" to refer only to pre-adolescents (roughly, persons through age 12) and older persons, who may be styled teens, adolescents, or youth.
This seems like OR. One reason that I joined PAW was to bring Wikipedia definition of child in sexual articles back to the mainstream cultural, legal, and medical definition. I'm unhappy with the definition of child on child sexual abuse, and child sexuality. FloNight talk 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Rompata I don't think it's accurate to systematically equate the term "child" with the legal definition of "age of consent." That sort of logic would forbid teens from buying clothes in anything except the childrens' section of the store. By the same token, I don't believe the term "child modeling" confuses things in these articles, because I don't think anyone ever seriously speaks of a 17-year-old as participating in "child modeling." Anyone in tune with modern culture would recognize that in the modeling world, a 17-year-old is an adult. Here's something relevant from the Lisanne Falk story (child modeling) - IIRC, her story was told at the point where she was around 13-14, as was Brooke Shields at the time. Lisanne spoke with envy about how Brooke was now an "adult" model (at 14!) due to her height (NOT her age). I also heard that Victoria's Secret used high school girls as catalog models back in the '80s (before the buyout).
  • Rompata RENAMING PROPOSAL
  • I just re-read the thread and my recent response and realized that I was talking about other articles and not about "child modeling (erotic)". While I think child modeling and Internet child modeling are correctly titled, I'm coming to believe that THIS article should be renamed "Youth modeling (erotic)" since the crucial point *IS* the model's relationship to the age of consent. The term "Youth" is ambiguous enough to cover both children and teens. Pat 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with The Land, this is subject matter that belongs in child pornography. We need to reduce the number of articles related to this topic. FloNight talk 16:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Flo, we probably want only one or two articles tops on this (not-very-notable, I guess) phenomena. As to the other... I just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch about this, and as to the mention of OR, in a certain sense that may be true but there is no single "scientific" definition of terms such as "child", so if its going to be used in articles at all Wikipedia must choose what is meant, and try to stick with it across articles, IMO. See "Child" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Nomenclature.

I also think there is just a huge difference between (say) a scantily-clad 17-year-old in a suggestive position with a come-on look, and a scantily-clad 7=year-old in a suggestive position with a come-on look, on several levels.

If you take a look at Cindy's site... it's not porn. She looks like the models in my daughter's teen clothing catalogs. Granted, she's selling herself not clothes, so I think it's problematic. But not twisted. It's an issue, but it's a completely different issue than the pre-teen kid (and a completely different issue than than the minor of any age age photographed nude or enganging in sex acts). Herostratus 21:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, I think the difference between a 6 yr old and a 16 year old is less than you are acknowledging. According to developmental psychology, neither person is sexually mature. For that reason, it is illegal and culturally unacceptable for adults to sexually exploit either one for their own pleasure. It is the potential for exploitation that keeps teens grouped as children. All children between 0 to 17 years old are open to exploitation because of their age. Teens are vulnerable to be physically abused by adults because of their status in society. The same is true of sexual abuse. This vulnerability makes child sexual abuse a specific type of child abuse.
Our way of defining child comes from focusing on the statuatory rape aspect, where consent is freely given, and ignoring the child sexual exploitation that occurs in teens. Google barely legal and sex. My first hit reads first time camera virgins to teen sluts who take it deep and hard. We shouldn't deny that there is a desire to exploit teens because they are teens.
On a cultural level, we can't ignore the *worldwide* children's rights movement. On some level, it is supported by every major government and religion. The children's rights movement addresses child sexuality and child sexual abuse. We appear out of touch with the real world if we narrow the definition of child as it relates to sexuality at the same time the real world is expanding it. FloNight talk 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You're asserting that a highly US-centric point of view is the only correct view when it comes to defining adulthood or sexual maturity. Let me assure you that this is not the case, and that different societies have defined the age of adulthood and/or sexual maturity differently. The US is just one country out of two hundred, and hardly authoritative on this topic in any way, shape or form. To claim that your particular point of view is endorsed by "every major government" is both ridiculous and arrogant.
Let's stick to the definition of "child" that's legal in most countries: those 12 and under. Anything over 12 is up for dispute in many other places (the insular U.S. point of view notwithstanding). What one country, or its citizens, would like to believe contrary to the actual fact of the matter is irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.53.186 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pat - I outlined a classification in the child modeling entry that distinguishes between these three:

  1. "conventional" modeling - like Cindy, that emphasizes conventional youth fashions and activities
  2. "erotic" modeling - a.k.a. soft porn, like the upskirt stuff and unconventional lingerie that is often featured in Vlad models and Webe Web sites
  3. "porn" which includes explicit sex acts

(to continue) I think it's more realistic to make those distinctions than to lump everything sexual into the "porn" category or, worse, define all child modeling as being sexual in nature. It doesn't seem very neutral to define all portrayals as sexual, or insist on a line based exclusively on legislation, a line that does not acknowledge widely accepted cultural ambiguities. The word "porn" has too much political and emotional baggage to be treated as a shorthand for "age of consent." Specifically: Pretty Baby is NOT child porn. However, we force it into that category when we insist that anything involving children and sexuality fall into a "porn" category.

Also let me take issue with the asserted "need to reduce the number of articles on this topic" since it's hardly a neutral point of view to suggest that widely accepted cultural ambiguities don't exist. Pat 16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can look at this suggestion. But, I don't think expanding the number of child pornography articles is the direction most of want to go. As you know, the Wikipedia community decides by consensus. I'm under the impression that most of the community wants to de-emphasis child pornography and pedophilia articles. Yes, these topic will be covered but it will be done legally (with no links to child porn) and with respect to the sensitive nature of the subject. Remember this is consensus not censorship. FloNight talk 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would we merge this with the kiddie porn article? It's not legally, and many people hold the opinion that it isn't. Likewise, you and most others see it as CP. Either way -- it's opinion. These topics can't be merged until the law officially smudges the line between child erotica and child porn. 24.224.153.40 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

US Centric

This article is too US Centric. The citation of laws for just the US seems out of place. It should be updated to cite most laws, or lump together countries that have similar laws, or remove the reference entirely. --Crossmr 06:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! I don't think the wikipedia should contain anything that doesn't affect at least 51% of the planet's population!

How I long for the thermonuclear war that wipes barren the land known as the USA. Then humanity will no longer be subjected to the perceived USA-centrism foisted upon the huddled masses.68.13.191.153 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Or care Iamhungey 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Child Modelling

Shouldn't this article be merged with child modelling? Its a little confusing have the two on seperate pages given the similar/subset nature of the two.74.12.74.247 08:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications on heading statement

The article header states: "Certain types of erotic child modeling are considered child pornography." This is a whole new thing to me, since it implies that erotic child modelling is not neccesarily child pornography.

  1. Does this mean legally or socially? It would be good to make this distinction.
  2. According to the US law, is it possible erotic child photography that is not child pornography? Could there be legal erotic child photography?
  3. Is there indeed a legal definition of erotic as opposed to pornographic? It woul be good to talk about this explicitly.
  4. Exactly what are the conditions that make, according to the US law, a graphic material be considered child pornography? It would be good to talk about this explicitly.

Of course, when talking about legal issues in the article, we must ideally address as many regions and legislations as we can. However, it would be a good start to clarify these things unedr the US laws.

Thanks in advance for the answers!

User:Alfredo J. Herrera Lago —Preceding comment was added at 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

bias against safety of children

Sections of this article are clearly pro-modeling, someone needs to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.248.208 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated Information.

I removed some information included dead links that no longer were valid, and also updated the webe case. I also added links to the DOST standard, please do not remove my modifications, I have run them by an administrator of wiki. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight2009 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the administrator contacted by email (I've only just read it), and I think Midnight2009 has misunderstood the position of administrators. I am not a moderator, administrator or in anyway owner of this article, nor is any other administrator or contributor. I haven't got time to look at the changes in detail now, so do not take this comment as either an approval or disapproval of Midnight2009's edits. There is no reason why normal wiki editing should be proscribed in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've included an image from Commons description above in the lead. I argue that it meets the requirements of WP:IMAGES as well as proposed Commons:Sexual content policy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. However it violates Wikipedia:No original research in that it introduces unpublished ideas or arguments. The claim that SuicideGirls features child models does not appear to be backed by any reliable sources. Since this article is pretty clearly about erotica involving actual children rather than adults pretending to be children the image is not therefor relivant to the article.©Geni 17:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Geni is correct. Use of this image on this article is contrary to no original research policy. It also violates verifiability policy. This article is about images and other material relating to children, generally viewed and collected by pedophiles. The terms of service on the SuicideGirls website states that all of their images show models that are at least 18 years of age. There is no connection between the two topics.
Also, the proposed Commons sexual content policy has no relevance to editorial decisions about images used in articles; that policy only determines whether or not an image is acceptable to be hosted on Commons. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though the model is presumably 18, I consider it unwise to directly display the image here. Readers wishing to view the image can go to Commons and paste "PIerced Topless Boyshorts.png" into the search field. This one additional step should add only a tiny inconvenience, which is worth the modicum of protection provided. Herostratus (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the image from the talk page. And aside from other concerns, viewing the image is not necessary anyway for discussing whether or not it is relevant to the article (it's not) or if its inclusion is supported by sources (it's not). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly not an appropriate image for this article. Verbal chat 10:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Child, children, teen, preteen, and "pedophile paraphenalia"

User:Jack-A-Roes recent edits introduced confusion into an article that used to be clear. By failing to define what a child is, created a "self-definition". The 2006 discussion (archive) is not "out-of-date", however the terminology used by Lanning in 1992 are, especially because they conflict with his 2001 source. "Pedophile paraphernalia" is not in common use and could be mentioned somewhere in the article but not in the first sentence, and not in the confusing and overbroad manner of "anything related to a child". Erotica created of a 17 year old 1 minute before his/her 18th birthday is still "child erotica" by US legal definition. We also need to globalize and incorpprate the Copine scale as well as country's laws. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources that have been found so far, including both of the Lanning sources, describe "child erotica" as material collected by pedophiles and/or "preferential child molesters". There's an entire chapter titled Child Erotica (“Pedophile Paraphernalia”) in Lanning's 2001 Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis. Google Books searches show that Lanning's definition is widely used. If there are any sources referring to child erotica that do not refer to its use or collection by pedophiles, those sources would be valuable for the article. Please add them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons policy under development: your input can help

In case people are confused by Stillwaterising's recent edit, I should mention that there is an ongoing policy discussion at Commons:Commons:sexual content, which has been rather unexpectedly complicated by the surprisingly unclear definition of what "child pornography" really is in the U.S. There is also outside influence coming from such groups as Larry Sanger, Wikipedia Review, and FOX News, and an ongoing dispute over procedure between Jimbo Wales and Commons admins. And the more I look up the specific law cases, the more it becomes apparent that while most readers in the U.S. seem to feel safe looking at Japanese child erotica or photographs of plain naked children, there are also bizarre cases where kids are getting prosecuted for "sexting" or writing fantasies. So there's a lot of confusion about how Wikimedia Commons could write a policy or even a fair explanation in an essay, that can reliably communicate the existing legal standards to readers and uploaders, when it is not so clear where sporadic prosecution ends and one-of-a-kind injustices begin.

I would encourage any experienced editors of this article to contribute their opinions at Commons:Commons:sexual content. Wnt (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A Little Agency case?

I've searched the web, and Wikipedia seems to be the only "source" that reports this "A little agency" case. Is it even real? Minhhale (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

THis is mostly unsourced stuff, it could even be a hoax. Schoolstage (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it existed. I personally observed it during the dot-com boom. One of the hazards of documenting this sort of thing is that when the law finally catches up with it, it disappears. Meanwhile, for legal reasons, the owners of it may use robots.txt to forbid archiving services such archive.org from accessing their sites. Downstrike (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

pedophile paraphernalia

I'm a tad concerned that the term "pedophile paraphernalia" is being given a lot of weight in the lead, yet it seems to be almost unused. It is in the reference I checked, although only very, very briefly, but a search in the Google News archive gets one hit, Google Scholar gets barely four, and even Google has few hits (750?). Are there any objections if I take it out of the lead? - Bilby (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it out, as the phrase is virtually unused, so including it as seemingly standard alternative title seems a tad odd. However, as I don't tend to believe that a lack of response is the same as approval, if anyone disagrees I have no problems with being reverted and having a discussion here. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The removal seems appropriate to me. If it is reintroduced it shouldn't be in the lead and should be accompanied by a citation that shows it's a significantly used term. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Libman and Pierson

The second paragraph of the "Webe Web" section mentions two individuals, "Libman" and "Pierson", only giving their surname, in a style as if they had been previously discussed in the article and as if it should be clear who they are, but their first names are not given until the following paragraph. I suspect this is a case of an edit moving or removing the more succinct introduction to these two, and subsequent edits of the paragraph in question not taking this into account. I don't feel capable of fixing this in a concise manner, so I thought I'd point it out for a better editor than I to tackle it. 24.137.114.248 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Does child erotica still exist as a separate category of material from child pornography?

The stuff that people call "child erotica" wouldn't be considered erotica if it were adults posing. Likewise, the stuff that people call erotica, that has adults posing, would be considered child pornography if it were kids posing. Nagendra Kumar Jain (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Child erotica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_erotica/Archive_1&oldid=1157960183"