Talk:Child pornography/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

There are some sexologists who said that...

banning CP is "not only deprive children of their sexual freedom,but also deprive children of their freedom to show their body and how sexy are them" and "A certain degree of sexual activity is necessary and beneficial for children"(Translated from Chinese:"可见这法律不但剥夺了儿童性交的自由,也剥夺了他们展示自己身体和性感一面的自由...一定程度上的性活动对儿童是必须和有益的"), by Ng Man Lun(吴敏伦),Founding President of World Association of Chinese Sexologists.Should we put it on the article?,see pages 19-22,and I remember that Chinese Sexologist Li Yinhe who also believe that have sex with children is not always harmful,if they are on their own initiative.--So47009 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is doubtful it should be added based on this description. Wikipedia has a policy called WP:FRINGE where views/sources that are very small and contradicted by numerous stronger, more reliable sources do not need to be added to an article. Further, the article you posted is in Chinese, making it difficult to verify if it says what you claim it does. It is also difficult to ascertain if Ng Man Lun has any academic credentials or license, if the statement is based on research or just his or her personal opinion, and if it was subject to peer-review. I also could not verify that Li Yinhe ever expressed the view you claim she did. Her work and activism seems to be centered around LGBT rights and changing criminal laws in China that less progressive than most Western countries. Of note is that it is a common tactic of anti-LGBT factions to accuse LGBT people and activists of promoting sex with children in order to discredit/disparage them, since this is universally considered harmful, so this claim is somewhat suspect.Legitimus (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ng Man Lun is a Psychiatrist who studied it at University of Hong Kong,and a registered therapist who has studied sex therapy in US ,see here,a Translated version,;and Li Yinhe pointed out it in problems of sexuality[性的問題],in which she said that the law about Age of consent is harmful for those engage in sexual activity on their own initiative.

digression:This may affect WP:CHILDPRO since it obstruct some sexologists who has those claims and want to editing wikipedia --So47009 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also,the sentence"Children of all ages, including infants,are abused in the production of pornography"is not need to change,but adding a text"some sexologists,such as ABC ,said..."--So47009 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done a cursory translation of the material, and it would not seem to support your assertions. First and most important: This article we are discussing here is about pornography, not age of consent and sexual abuse of children. Your sources are about age of consent and child sexual abuse. In other words, your in the wrong article talk page. Second, the sources you posted appear to be merely opinions of individuals. This is very weak information for two reasons. One is that it is flatly contradicted by stronger sources where children who had sex too young were studied and compared with children who did not, and were found to have numerous psychological problems even when controlling for poverty, support, education etc. Two, there is a slightly tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless accurate aphorism called Skarka's Law, which essentially states no matter how incorrect or even reprehensible a position may be, if you search the internet long enough, you will find someone who will defend it. This is why we have the WP:FRINGE rule: Just because somebody out there said it doesn't make it valid or worthy of mentioning.Legitimus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

OK…… although most source do not deal with the children agree or not，all call it“child sexual abuse”.And how about sexual right-related arguments？Ng believe that banning CP is violate “The right to autonomy and bodily integrity”，or something like that .--So47009 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. The other studies, especially more recent ones, account for whether or not the child "agreed" and even if no force or coercion was used, harm was still demonstrated. The harm is different, but it is still there. Also, the "right to bodily autonomy" etc is not a scientific argument. By that logic, you would permit a child to chop off their own arm simply because they desire to do so. Even when an adult desires to do that (and there is no medical reason to do so), it's considered a situation where other people are justified in intervening to prevent it.

You so far have still not explained if Ng talked about CP explicitly in his works. He does not appear to, and if you are just inferring that he believes this, that is also inappropriate because of the WP:SYNTHESIS rule.Legitimus (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence I have said is Ng’point. he believe that let a 10 year old children know about what are the possible harm of sexual intercourse is not harder than let them know about the harm of fighting,it depending on the social provide the knowledge about sex or not.So it is not a reason for banning CP.In conclusion,he said"Cancellation of penalties relating to virtual children and virtual sexual intercourse（which means CP by inferred as above）"--So47009 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also,your views may be correct ，but not sure since it have a lot a factors ,see The Harm Argument part of here--So47009 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That last article actually supports what I said about harm and raises almost the exact same point, as flimsy as it is for a source. But even if I were to disregard all the problems I have raised so far, there seems to be too much a language barrier to verify this claim. I cannot rely on your translation since you are the one advancing the argument, and your own apparent limitations are making this conversation difficult. Which raises the question why you are so intent to adding this material to the English-language version of the page, considering the Chinese language version also does not use these sources or make these arguments.Legitimus (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK,I believe that English version can get me a lot of useful information about this topic, there are so many people editing it.Since I can't translate the whole paper and it always become mojibake when I copy it,I want to finish the discussion--So47009 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's also fairly irrelevant to the article, which is about child pornography, not child sexual behavior. Anything which could be viewed as legitimatizing child pornography (as the term is meant in the article and common discussion) should not be included, as per common sense and decency and the need to protect children, which is a legal policy of WP, which is linked above. This sort of thing may be fine for an article on sexting, as discussed above, but putting it here is again unnecessary. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OP seems refering to auto-sexuality or minor-initiated contact. For example, suppose a child makes sexual contact with a sleeping adult (technically rape) video tapping the interaction to show their friends for "educational" reasons. Or, suppose a minor discovers masturbation then wishes to document their masturbation sessions. Primarily, someone significantly sheltered might not even know that constitutes a crime. Not only that, but, if the minor developes a strong free speech ethic prior to sexual education, then learning about the criminality might cause non-trivial moral dissonance. OP probably also means erotic nude imagery, where a minor might decide to experiment with using their body to create art.

You responding editors seem to expect a source to say "sex with children is healthy for children" to support OP's claim.

Avoid letting WP:OUTRAGE blind you to what others intend.

Anonymous Kekistani
22:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"that exploits" + the U.S.A. + Loli

The U.S.A. regards drawings of underage characters as child pornography, therefore illegal to possess.

Shouldn't the lede reflect that, since, in general, hentai qualifies as pornography?

Anonymouse Kekistani
22:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Anonymouse Kekistani' is misinformed. See Simulated_child_pornography#Virtual_child_pornography: "Virtual Child Pornography is legal to possess in the United States." —Blanchette (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"Child Sexual Abuse Material" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Child Sexual Abuse Material. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SwissArmyGuy (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relation to rape pornography

Is all child pornography rape pornography? (User:Wikipedianuhai) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thanks. LoganBlade (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Child pornography also includes simply filming a child naked. For sexual purposes, of course. And that does not classify as rape. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation for CP acronym

User:Bkonrad added a for the acronym "CP" in the first sentence. I removed it, stating "A cited quote in the article body uses the abbreviation". That was then reverted with the statement "that's not at all helpful -- which one?".

All it takes is a ctrl+f search for "CP" on the article to find it. It is in Child pornography § Relation to child molestation and abuse. The citation is number 47: Wolak, Janis; Finkelhor, David; Mitchell, Kimberly (2011). "Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics". Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. 23 (22): 22–42. doi:10.1177/1079063210372143. PMID 21349830. S2CID 14088692.

I don't think it's worth putting this citation in the lead sentence, since the acronym is a relatively common one. If people think it should be added then they can do that. But the should not remain, so I'm removing it for now.

Nog642 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In the introduction section the source for video game doesnt back it up

It's an article about a Nintendo game. I think this needs a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple “solution”

I think we’re gonna have the “Apple solution” (https://www.wired.com/story/apple-csam-detection-icloud-photos-encryption-privacy/) to be covered somewhere, aren’t we? --Filippof (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, not in the U.S. we won't - because the general rule of thumb is that a private actor becomes a government actor for purposes of fourth amendment constitutional search and seizure law (e.g. the search warrant requirement) such that the government may not enlist the assistance of private actors to evade the general requirements of the fourth amendment. (e.g. if a private individual acts at the behest of the government the private individual becomes a government actor for purposes of constitutional law). In apple's case because of Apple's rather entangled history of involvement with the government and government funding for such, the Supreme court would most likely hold that Apple would be a government actor for purposes of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents / 42 U.S.C. 1983 as to enable Apple to be sued for fourth amendment violations. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "child pornography" only child sexual abuse

Pornography is closely associated with performances by adults where it is understood to be consensual. A child cannot give its consent. It is an important distinction to make. All sexual material of children is abuse and a crime scene.

Calling it pornography also confuses people who work to prevent this material from being spread and have to investigate it. They work with crime scenes and get no pleasure from examining this abusive material.

Change the title of this article to "Child sexual abuse". JanusArtois (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have an article named Child sexual abuse. We try to follow how reliable sources describe subjects. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed to "child sexual abuse material". The term child pornography is more commonly used by the general public but it's being called Child sexual abuse material by the organizations that deal with. https://www.netsafe.org.nz/csam-law/#:~:text=Child%20sexual%20abuse%20material%20or,their%20suffering%20is%20not%20shown. https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/csam https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/27/lockdown-hampering-removal-of-child-sexual-abuse-material-online https://www.ecpat.org/what-we-do/online-child-sexual-exploitation/ https://childrescuecoalition.org/educations/its-not-child-pornography-its-child-sexual-abuse-material/ 49.224.233.120 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding also that Interpol considers "Child sexual abuse" to be more appropriate terminology.

https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Appropriate-terminology Ckoerner (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First, "Child Pornography" was and currently still is the common term for this type of material. While their are anti-child porn advocates pushing for the term "Child Sexual Abuse material" to be used instead of "Child Pornography" that hasn't been universally adopted by everyone as of 2021. Thus is fair to call it as of 2021 the term most common. Second, As for the claim thatit can't be called child pornagrphy becuase it involves abuse, that is false. Pornaphy, while an exact definition has been hard to pin down in history (i.e. I Know it when I see it.), Typical dictionary definitions include something along the lines of "...intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." and thus "child porn" fits that definition given that it is designed to do just that for the intended audience (It needn't arrouse everyone who views it to be called a form of porn, just as not all adult porn needs arouse every viewer to considered porn which is why we have the concept of niche porn.). Thus the best way to handle this terminolgy issue as of 2021 is to stick with the term "Child Pornography" as the article title and main term used as it is the most common term and then include info on the user of the aternate term "Child Sexual Abuse Material" (CSAM) and explain why they advocate for it's use over the term "Child pornagraphy". We can also allow for people to use the CSAM term where the sources use the term. If at some point the latter term becomes the default we can edit the article to reflect that, though we should at that time add at least a sentence describing how the term 'Child Pornography" was once the common term for CSAM. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC) 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

First, I want to remind you that Wikipedia policy is that one must remain civil when discussing article on the talk page. Thus calling people idiots on the talk page violates the Wikipedia:Civility policy so you have been warned. Beyond that, What we call choose to child porn/child sex abuse material (CSAM) on this Wikipedia matters even if it doesn’t to you, as there are is Wikipedia policy that help us decide what to call things to maintain consistency and clarity so the Wikipedia:Commonname policy applies here. This has nothing to do the fact that child porn involves abuse, as what you choose to call it is irrelevant to that fact so I don’t understand why that triggered you so much. Regardless, the fact that child involves abuse does not preclude debates over what exactly the proper definition of child porn should be in this article or in general given the lack of consensus in the outside world as to whether depictions of mere nudity involving minors is abusive. To date mere underage non-sexual nudity has never been defined as child abuse in any Western country and this article should reflect that fact. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharliechaplin You are absolutely right. Mleonard85032 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharliechaplin I deleted my response because it doesn't serve the community. Mleonard85032 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the term pornography is defined in the dictionary as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." This means that the term "pornography" does not, per se, carry a connotation of "consent" - but rather is a neutral term with respect to the notion of consent. This is especially true given the word roots the term decends from- the ancient Greek Pornos, which is taken by the majority of scholars to have the connotation of prostitution for hire; used in the Pauline writings to mean specifically "a male prostitute; a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse". Therefore, the notion that "consent" is somehow implied by the term pornography is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and has no credible basis whatsoever, but rather is reaching for inappropriate political semantics. 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.191.34 (talk)

Firstly the general term used by the public and most of the media is child pornography. Wikipedia uses general terms. Secondly the term CSAM is regarded by many as a redefinition by some organisations of what constitutes child abuse. Wikipedia does not use redefinitions or further agendas. As this is a general subject and not an academic one wikipedia also goes by the general consensus and not by the "experts" or organisations. The issue of consent is really irrelevant here though, lastly as much as people in general don't want to admit it there is a nonpublic debate raging that not all pornographic images constitute abuse and when children are able to consent or not. Whether you agree with it or not does not change this fact and to ignore it is not a neutral stance. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Change pornography that unlawfully exploits children for sexual stimulation to simply pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation (remove unlawfully). There is no such thing as lawful exploitation of children. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have moved 'unlawful' to instead read unlawful pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation in order to still be clear that this type of pornography is unlawful. Tollens (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible section regarding the history of child pornography before the internet

I'd like to hear your thoughts on adding a section regarding the child pornography before the internet. AveNohpex (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources on it? If so, be bold and add it. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm quite sure that there was child pornography before the Internet, although how it would have been distributed in the days before emails, I've no idea. Perhaps under the counter in certain newsagents shops. But still photography has been around for over 170 years and cine photography for 125 years, so assuming that human nature hasn't changed in all that time and that there's nothing new under the sun, there must have been a lot of it produced since then. How much of it has survived is anyone's guess. However, the definition of child porn has changed a great deal since the 1980s. It used to mean films or photos of children taking part in sexual acts, but now, any film or photo of a naked child is regarded as child porn. I remember when, back in June, 1976, I was in a WHSmith's store and on the shelves was that months issue of Parents magazine. On the cover was a photo of two naked children, a boy and a girl aged about three years old. No one thought anything of it at that time, but anyone buying it back then and still having it in their possession would find themselves in a lot of trouble now if the police found out. The question posed by the above anecdote is this: If it wasn't wrong to possess that magazine in 1976, why is it wrong now? David Rayner, September 7th, 2021.

I can't speak speciically to the Parents magizine cover in question you recall seeing but I can say that it is not now nor has it ever been illegal in the UK to possess images of non-sexual child nudity in and of itself (contrary to popular misconception in the UK and US) so likely the cover wouldn't be illegal by todays legal standards just as it wasn't back then in the UK or US (assuming it indeed just shows mere nudity that is not sexual/lewd, lacisviouse, etc as you seemed to suggest it did). Since this is something that reliable source have addressed both in the UK and US and in other countries (i.e. IS underage nudity illegal in and of itself and if so when often in regards to failed attempts to prosecute people for content with mere underage nudity, that is something soomeone with some time could specifically address in the article better. Here is a link to an PDF document that talks about the legal differences in how many difference countries around the world define and legislate CSAM (aka Child Porn) material since not all countries define CSAM exactly the same (it's from INHOPE, a internationally recognized group fighting to eliminate CSAM and operating a reporting network for CSAM): https://www.inhope.org/media/pages/articles/inhope-network-legislative-overview/4b1f18f61f-1623308197/legislativeoverview_final.pdf This should help as reliable source to use as a starting off point at least. Now To address the original question above: Before the internet, much of child porn was sent through the mail or passed around among individuals directly from person to person. Some European countries did not outlaw child porn until some time later than America and many European countries did and as such you could buy such content on the open market including in porn shops in those countries. Now all European countries outlaw it, if were talking about the type of CP/CSAM that every country has defined as illegal. When it came to clear cut CP (i.e. non-gray area content) in the prepublic intenret days, it was largely distributed via photographs, magazines, books, and 8mm/16mm films and later on video tape or via computer bulletin board services (BBS's) in the 80's/early-90's. Also, be aware that while the internet has become the main way to distribute CP these days, it hasn't completely wiped out other means of distribution such material such as via snail mail or via person to person as reliable news sources from time to time still report such cases still though much less frequently then internet related CP casesm these days. Since articles from notable publications exist on this specific question which were published in the years of the late seventies to thw mid 90s (before the internet was easily accesable by the general public) and thus you can find them if you search through public library newspaper and magazine archives, if anyone wants to add section regarding how CP was distributed, especially before the inernet, then there is no reason it can't be done in compliance with WP policies regarding sources and such. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

---

No, the photo on the Parents magazine cover from nearly 46 years ago was just nudity and nothing else. However, photos of simple child nudity are a bit of a grey area. I remember a couple of cases where parents who took photos of their children in the bath and then took the film in to be developed and printed were arrested and charged with child sexual abuse when workers in the photo lab saw the photos and called the police. One of them was ITN newsreader Julia Somerville. But when the cases got to court, the judge threw the cases out because he ruled that the photos were neither abusive nor pornographic. Such cases are unlikely to happen today because photos are now taken digitally and no film processing is involved. Therefore, there is no need for anyone outside of the family or close friends to see the images. David Rayner, Monday, December 27th, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRayner (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That is somewhat misleading- while it is true that mere nudity is not pornography, at least in the United States, the question as to whether something is mere nudity vs. pornography is a highly factual issue that juries must decide in adherence to the jury instructions given, which typically heavily involve the Dost factors which distinguish the difference between nudity vs. pornography for purposes of law in the United States. Rather, in the context of U.S. law, it can be an extremely complex grey area, given that the original doctrine in Miller v. California and obscenity doctrine in general is by no means a neat and clean doctrine of the U.S. supreme court. For example, Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft created a major exception to the legal definition of child pornography under U.S. law by striking down the language "appears to be" from the statutory law, and instead requiring the government to prove the actual involvement of a child. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

---

I concur there should be a section but sources would be hard to come by and the only information I've ever come across is online forum discussions. One involved a magazine like Hustler if I'm correct showing a girl in a suggestive pose. In the next issue another girl was in a suggestive pose looking at the page of the first girl. I think this would count as pornography because of where it appeared defining its purpose. It appears that before laws regarding CP there was the occasional image in a mainstream magazine. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

What about the fully nude shoot [1] of Brooke Shields she posed for Playboy at age 10? I'm not sure if really pornographic but the purpose was clearly erotic in nature and even if legal would cause a big stir today. Biofase ^flame| stalk  15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Littlemisschaotic (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Littlemisschaotic (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)