Ustwo

Since children can't protect themselves from sexual predators by nature, and anyone who gets off on obviously under aged children having sex is a true pervert it only makes sense that having child pornography should be illegal since in this case the viewer is creating a market for exploitation.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Fast Forward

Who know for sure? But as far as child pornography goes, we can start by observing national laws governing "age of consent". If we photograph "under age" children in pornographic poses then it's a safe bet that it is "wrong". The same ought to go for looking (collecting? getting off?) on such photos. No?

It's might be easier to say what is "wrong" than what is "right".

Shauk

kind of like how people define themselves by what they are "not" instead of what they "are"

abaya

Tec, I have to say, this is kind of assuming a universal belief in the "mental health" and "innocence" of children... when in fact, in many developing countries (and even not so long ago, in the US), there is no such thing.

A little walk around the block of Patpong Road in Bangkok will tell you that. *VERY* pre-pubescent girls there, forced to do god knows what with lecherous pedophiles, just to send some money back home to their parents (if it ever gets there). Same thing goes on in a lot of places.

Or, even removed from a sexual context, previous to 1938 in the US (when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, prohibiting child labor under age 16), look at the ages of kids working in factories... where their small hands were desired for working quickly with the machines, and injuries on the job, losing fingers and hands, getting coal in the lungs, were just part of "growing up." This kind of thing still goes on in plenty of countries... "According to recent global estimates by the International Labor Office, the number of working children aged 5 to 14 in developing countries is in the order of 250 million, of whom some 120 million work full time in various jobs often under hazardous conditions amid crude living conditions." (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...abor/about.htm ).

It's only in the last 100 years that people (mostly Western countries) have begun to think of children as "innocent" and having a need to be "protected," whether from sexual exploitation or work exploitation. The rest of the world is still catching up, unfortunately... and as long as there's a demand, there will always be someone to supply that "commodity." Very unfortunate fact.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

tecoyah

Thus, I used the evolution of our societies as a backdrop for the statements. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 50 yrs, and society as a whole reflects the growth of understanding psychology. Granted, all societies on earth differ in this regard, but the trend toward protecting the young on a mental level is genuine and expanding. Western Taboo of Child sex is an example of this growth in my opinion.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

abaya

Point taken. I guess I just see so much abuse of children (in all ways) in developing countries, that it kind of overwhelms my opinion of the "progress" of human society as a whole. It's just very sad to see 10 or 12 year old prostitutes, you know?... and to know that there is a market for that...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

tecoyah

...couldn't agree more...Thus, I check ID's on all my prositutes

Sorry, trying to inject a bit of humor into a very bad situation

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Fast Forward

You could say that.

One example might be, "I'm NOT a capitalist". It doesn't mean that you are a communist or any other form of an established, political institution.

Another example might be, "I do NOT believe in God". It doesn't mean that you deny God's existance or that you are saying that God didn't create heaven and earth. "I don't believe in God" merely means that you are not fully convinced. Nothing more - nothing less.

Unless you're a fakir and your aim is good.

Datalife2

Kids are having sex younger than ever before. I am totally against child porn but with the way the world is changing at this extreme speed...gay marriage and multiple divorce people,.. i can see the world getting more screwed up as it already is..whats next beastiality legalization...the world has no shame anymore.

__________________
where's my lighter?

Ustwo

You know if that were true every time someone has said it in history, kids would be having sex in the womb by now.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Racnad

When I was in high school during the late 1970s, I thought I was one of the few left my age who wasn't having sex. Oh, wait! I did have sex wto tmes with one girl when I was 15, then not again until after high school.

Now I know that in my day, most of us in high school were not having sex, but we thought everyone else was.

Recent surveys of teen sexual behavoir show that a few teens age 13-16 are having sex, but most aren't. This doesn't sound that different than when I was in high school.

In recent years there have been stories circulating about blowjob parites or "rainbow" parties in which a bunch of guys stand in a line and girls take turns giving them blowjobs. There was a novel about this, a few Oprah! shows and a series on Showtime I saw where a teen character when to one.

But when journalists try to track these down, all they find are kids who've heard about other kids or kids at other schools who've been to them. No oen can find kids who've actualy been to them.

Anything than makes juicy gossip or scares parents gets passed around, whether it is true or not. One good barometer of teen sexuakl activity is the teen pregnancy rate, and that is down since the 1980s.

nonplussed

The first rule of morality is "do no harm".

Child pornography is wrong because the existance of the images is hurtful to the young subjects. Would they feel better knowing that people are looking at the pictures or would they feel better knowing that they have all been destroyed? For the record, I think they would want the pictures destroyed.

I anticipate that you would argue that this logic is flawed because the young subjects have no way of knowing that you are looking at the pictures. My answer is that morality means doing the right thing even if no one is looking.

But... if someone past the age of consent gives you child porn featuring them in an episode from the past, then there is nothing wrong with viewing the images

goomba_1

There isn't really "child pornography" in any sort of meaningful sense. Its another internet boogeyman made up by the powers that be in pursuit of greater control.

You cannot destroy a market based on fighting the supply side when you are dealing with (nearly) infinitely inelastic demand. See also: narcotics, prostitution.

JumpinJesus

I think this is one of the most compelling statements in this thread and exploring this a bit further might help answer the original question of the thread.

Before the time when children were considered innocent and needing protection, would child pornography have been acceptable? Had the internet existed during this time where child labor was acceptable, how would we have responded to child pornography then?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Halx

I think that if having sex with a child was accepted in society, then the act of doing it would not be surrounded with secrecy, deception and shame. In turn, the result would not be damaging, like it is frequently portrayed to be. Sex would just mean a lot different things to us.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Sharon

You can't compare CP with pictures of murdered victims. Those pictures don't encourage murders in the same way as CP encourages child abuse. A closer parallel might be comparing them with snuff films. If people were seeking out and paying for snuff films, that would probably end up leading to more murders in the same way CP would end up producing more child abuse.

To answer the question about whether it's wrong... sexual abuse of children fucks them up, in most cases for the rest of their lives. CP causes child abuse pretty much without exception, and therefore I think it is wrong.

Which I suppose brings us to the tangent of whether porn is wrong if it fucks up its participants (and in many cases it probably does). But we already have enough threads on that.

Fast Forward

But that applies to adults too. So I must agree that we're back to the question of the validity in pornography as a whole. Anyway, that's what I said in the beginning - and we're still there.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

I believe that sex with children was once "normal" within the Roman Empire. Also, adult men's sexual gratification with young boys is often "common place" today in many Islamic cultures where premarital sex is strongly forbidden. Although I don't believe the practice of molesting boys is "officially" accepted it must almost certainly be more readily tolerated than having sex with women - before marriage.

mixedmedia

There is a lot of validity in this statement.

Most people around here know that my kids were molested - starting approximately at around the age of 8 respectively (although I did not know it until they were 18 & 15). Now, not under any circumstances do I believe it is right or appropriate to have sex with children - it is an adult behavior that can spread disease, cause pregnancy, and bring all sorts of adult phenomena and anxiety into a child's life that it is really worthwhile to protect them from.

But the fact is my kids are okay and I think in large part that is due to having grown up in a household where there was no concept of shame associated with sexuality. When my kids talk about it now, it is the sense of secrecy, of having kept it from me, of having betrayed me (because their molester was their stepfather) that haunts them. They are not haunted by a sense of sexual shame because they know that their role in the abuse was part of their own natural curiosity about sex - a curiosity that was exploited by someone who was/is damaged by his own childhood experiences. Now, the former feelings I have been able to help them with - all I've had to do is support them and let them know that I love them.

It is the feelings of sexual guilt and shame, of feeling like you are a bad or weak person for allowing it to happen to you that lead to heavy, lingering emotional damage in molestation victims. Like my former husband - whose own shame was so great that in the 10+ years we were together he never told me about it. He was molested by a male cousin when he was 8. His parents caught them and their reaction was to put him in the bathtub (to 'clean him up' I suppose), beat him, and immediately push the entire episode into the closet and never talk about it.

Now it's really kind of a catch-22 situation though, because if you remove the shame from sexual activity to protect children who are molested from suffering a lifetime of emotional damage (and thereby avoid going on to molest other children) will you be inadvertently encouraging more sexual activity among/with children?

Personally, I think it is worth the risk.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Deltona Couple

This whole thread had become an interesting discussion on a very real and disturbing condition. I have already stated my general thoughts on the subject, and since some people have brought up an interesting point on society progression, I will add this:
We as a Western society are trying to do our best to protect the children as a whole against child exploitation(child labour as well as child pornography)
As a general rule, most states support age of concent at around 17, and child porn laws for anyone under the age of 18. I have heard many comments that generally state "if anyone has thoughts of having sex with a minor, then they are sick." And in TODAY'S society, I would tend to agree. However It is a progression of sorts. It was less than 100 years ago that in our own country, girls were considered "old maids" if they were not married and poping out children by the age of 14. Of course this was also based on the fact that the average age of death was only in the 40s. So as we progress in lifestyle and developmental progression we have changed the societal norm to a more reasonable age. Who knows? In another 100 years we may raise the age of concent to 21 for sex! Then are we suddenly going to say that those who have sex with a 20 year old are sick?...lol. I hope I am getting my point across...but do you all see what I mean?

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Sharon

Sure it applies to adults. I also mentioned the "pornography as a whole" question in my post later on.

The difference here is that (in general) the younger a person is, the less well equipped they are to make a decision about something like that. Sure, when you're 18 you may be naive about the consequences of being in the adult industry, but at least you probably have some idea. When you are 8, you simply don't realise what you're dealing with... and in ases of child abuse, that decision was never even made available to them as it is forced upon them (or manipulated on them, which again also happens to naive 18 year olds, but as before, they should know better than an 8 year old).

Fast Forward

In asses of child abuse? This should be included in the 'Happy National Punctuation Day.' thread.

Sharon

Typing on my laptop while lying on my bed isn't great for my accuracy!

Fast Forward

At least you didn't complain about me adding an extra letter to spice it up.

Ustwo

Sex with a sexually mature (note I said sexually) child is one thing. I don't approve of it but more from a protection aspect, 13-18 year olds tend to be dumbasses, 18+ slightly less dumbass.

Sex with a sexually immature child, no grass on the field, is fucked up.

The first is fluid. Not even every state in America agrees where the line is, so its all over the place world wide. There can be valid arguments on both sides. I think its the wealth and the 'extended' childhoods in the west which push that line to 18, where in some impoverished nation, 14 makes more sense.

The second is where I put the perverts.

So which group is being discussed here?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

mixedmedia

I agree with you and I would assume we are talking about the second.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

squeeeb

the original question is for the second group.

i agree sexual abuse of children is wrong, but i disagree CP causes sexual abuse. i've said it before, i will look at CP ALL DAY, and after all the vomiting and being phisically ill by it, it won't make me want to have sex with children. same as i can watch gay porn all day long, i'm not gonna want to suck a dick. i can only assume most people are the same way.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

orionnebula

This is a great question... Is child porno wrong?

Of course for child (pre-puberty) that is a definate YES.

As for teens, the answer is more vague. It all depends on the notion of maturity and legal consent. Currently 18 years is the "ideal age" to mature, but for some 14 would be ok while for other, they would puss it back to 21.

If two "underage" teens where to do porn by themselves, would it be wrong that is hard question, for the act itself, I don't think it would be. But who would watch it: perverts. So this make it wrong.

But for the first situation, it will probably never happen without the persuasion ($$$) by a sex producer and if a major is involved with minor then it is wrong.

But is adult porn (especially barely-legal type) right because some of the actress are not adult (and it shows in the making of on the dvds)

Sharon

I am referring to the people who produce the stuff, not the people who view it.

mixedmedia

Of course, it won't make a person who isn't a pedophile into one. But I think there could be some merit to the theory that it could contribute to a pedophile's motivation to live out their fantasies if they are one who has managed to keep it in check. Pedophilia is not an ordinary sexual desire. It is a fetish which is only a step away from a compulsion. And once they take that step, very few are ever in control of it again. So I believe there is culpability to be found in media that depicts sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

albania

In this case I’m considering a naked picture and for arguments sake let’s suppose that regardless of whatever method the picture was taken the child was not traumatized or deeply affected. This topic is somewhat interesting. I think it’s safe to say that child pornography is wrong, but the interesting part is why. It’s almost wrongness by association; there is nothing wrong with the human body. However, there is agreement in the supposition that you can look at the human body in an evil or perverse way. The crux of the matter stands in practicality. It certainly is possible to look at child pornography and not be a pedophile, but there is no one that has the capacity to differentiate a pedophile and a non-pedophile who both watch child porn. So here it is reason that binds us. Child pornography is wrong because to allow otherwise is to have to allow for enough doubt that makes it logically inconsistent to jail someone for looking at child pornography. (hehe, reread this and summed it up to myself this way: It’s wrong because if it wasn’t wrong we couldn’t put people in jail for it. Kind of circular...but it made sense to me at the time.)


A slight tangent: I remember hearing once that giving people access to pornography of rape (anime) lead to less rape. The case considered was Japan. The counterargument given was that the society in Japan forces women to keep rape a secret, i.e. it’s not that this type of porn was somehow keeping crimes of rape low in Japan but rather they just went unreported. I don’t know enough about Japan to say either way, but what if it was true that child pornography (cartoon or what have you) lead to some pedophiles not acting on their urges? Would it be wrong to in that case? Sorry, if this was brought up before. I’m slightly sleepy and didn’t read through every post.

Shauk

this is kind of what I was getting at. Theres no magic transition at 16/17/18 or whatever your state laws are that make sex an inherently different function of humanity. really,what this topic is about is social perception and reaction.

I dunno for some reason there has always been a distinction between molestation, rape, and then just plain sex.

it's funny to me because you know it seems the kneejerk reaction to hearing "child" before the word porn is to assume that the older person took advantage of the child against their will. I've never been one to make assumptions though.

I guess I gain a unique perspective on this because i've been interested in sex since the moment I was 12 years old. I don't think I would have felt like the law would need to step in and take punitive measures if I wanted to "mature" a little early and find out what the big fuss was.

now I hope to extract myself from this thread without people having it in thier head that "damn, that shauk dude is fuuuuucked up" because I assure you, i'm not. I just don't have kneejerk reactions to everything that modern society tells me that I should. I'm just not that programmable I guess. While this topic applies to sex/porn my philosophy applies to many more aspects than that. I guess the whole "rule of thumb" lifestyle isn't for me.

oh and after rereading the thread I guess I should re-iterate I'm of the "no grass on the field" playstyle is pretty messed up.

although I like my women mostly shaved

kinda funny cuz the other day I came in from a delivery and the 1st thing my co-worker asks was "was she hot?"

and she was actually, but then I went on to add that she was a bit young

"what, like 11?"

"hahaha no, god I hope not, I'd feel kinda weird if she was"

which actually turned into a discussion about how it's so hard to tell anymore, I've been caught off guard by a girl who was hitting on me and then when I found out she was 14 I was just like "oh, shit" cuz she looked like she was about 20 or so.


I guess my line in that situation would have been "i would have done it but I didn't want to get in trouble" because I mean, thats just a huge can of worms to get labeled as a sexual offender for the rest of your life, jail time, and worse.

Deltona Couple

OK. based on alot of the posts here, I have a question on the same general lines here. I would truely like an honest answer from everyone. Here is the senario: (not a REAL situation, but I am using myself as an example for clarity)

Lets say I was a child in today's society, with access to digital cameras, and video. Now I am 13 years old, and me and my 13 year old girlfriend think it would be fun to take a video of us having sex together. We make the video, and it gets shoved into the closet. 20 years later, where I would be 33 years old, I find the video hidden in a box. I then watch the video, remembering who it was of....Now am I a sick person if watching that video turns me on? considering it was ME in the video in the first place? I am honestly curious how everyones own opinion was. Put yourself in the situation instead of me....how does it look from your perspective? because to me, I don't see it being pedopheliac of me, where if i watched a video of someone ELSE, then I would say I would be that way if it turned me on. Thoughts?

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

bhamv

First, apologies for the Godwin.

The scenario in the original post reminds me of how all Nazi imagery is banned in Germany now. The Nazi regime, so twisted and horrific, is something that the vast majority of modern society wants no part of. (I note, of course, that there are some exceptions) In Germany, this distaste is made part of their legal and moral code.

Now, simply looking at a swastica doesn't automatically make you anti-semitic. Reading about the Holocaust doesn't automatically make you want to build concentration camps. Studying Mein Kampf doesn't automatically make you grow a toothbrush moustache and extend your arm in salute.

However, Germany's determination to have no part further connection with the Nazi atrocities means they cut off all things Nazi. So drawing a swastika in public will get you thrown in jail, or at least the disapproval of lots of people. Take no chances, if you will.

Similarly, the abuse of children is seen as twisted and horrific. So taking, distributing and viewing pictures of child abuse is similarly avoided. People take no chances in coming into contact with anything associated with child abuse.

So is viewing child pornography inherently wrong? I don't think so. But due to its indelible association with child abuse, people will always react negatively to child porn.

Lak

I'd like to do a quick rundown here because there are several interesting points in this thread and I think we can knock off a few of them:

1) Photo of a crime
The only clear distinction in the 'picture of a crime' analogy is that consumption creates a market demand. While photos of dead people are not illegal, child pornography is because if one downloads or purchases it in some way it creates an active market - supply and demand. While CP remains valuable to some people then others will continue to create it for profit. Thus by consuming CP in some way you (semi)directly contribute to the further abuse of children.
My conclusion: Yes CP is wrong.
Reason: Actively creates demand.

2) Age of consent
As already fairly extensively covered a while ago on TFP, its generally agreed here that the age of consent is a rather arbitrary and meaningless figure imposed out of necessity to protect children from manipulation. It can never be concrete but the higher the limit the more certain we can be that those above it are fit to fend for themselves. It can't be 100%. It wouldn't be 100% of the limit was 30 and it wouldn't be 0% if the limit was 10. There is little doubt however that manipulation occurs largely in the 6-16 zone and thus it is necessary to have some kind of imposition.
My conclusion: The age of consent is appropriate.
Reason: It is necessary and falls on the 'safe' side of 'safe or sorry'.

3) Spawning Abusers
Here is what I find the most interesting point, does viewing CP make a CP 'enthusiast' more likely to go out and try it on for themselves. I find it highly unlikely. Equating a pedophile with a child molester is equivalent to equating an everyday healthy male with a rapist. To simple be a pedophile hurts no-one. If I am a regular guy with a sexual attraction to women, viewing large amounts of (legal) pornography does not increase my desire to go out and abuse or rape women. If you extend this to sexual attraction to children instead of women, one can conclude that generally, CP does not encourage abuse on the part of the viewer (but it can on the part of the producer, see #1).
My conclusion: Viewing CP does not make one into an abuser per se
Reason: It is unreasonable to assume that attraction begets rape
This leads me to what I find most interesting in these discussions:

4) Simulated Child Pornography
A quick tour of wikipedia will tell you that in Japan, 'lolicon' (a contraction of 'lolita complex') describes fairly run-of-the-mill pedophilia expressed as original drawings, and that this is legal to buy and own. (Real, actual CP is of course still illegal). This makes sense if you think about it because in order to produce lolicon imagery, no child need be manipulated at all. It is a picture of... well, nothing. There is no crime. Here is the question then:

Consider lolicon or other types of 'fake' CP in which no real child is used and no exploitation takes place. Is this a harmless outlet for desires which might otherwise turn to harmful types of media or direct abuse of real children, or a slippery slope (a-la pornography runaway) wherein exposure to the images eventually encourages viewers to pursue the real thing?

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

Clare

Child porn is wrong, although i do see your point. some of these people will be ashamed of their feelings but can't do anything about it. People are turned on by lots of different things. Even if this is the result of say a molestation when the person themselves has been a child, they can't control being attracted to children, they can only control what they do about it.

Of course this leads to another point should they even act upon this by looking at child porn! the same as someone would do with beastiality or BDSM? Or should their other instincts and morals take over and persuade them not to act upon it? Would this repression damage them mentally even further? the way a transexual becomes depressed by repressing their desire to be another sex by denying themselves. this is a very interesting subject with so many things to consider.

orionnebula

If it was me I don't see it as porn. It might aroused you for many reason, a long lost love for example. If it was from someone else tought and the kids are 13 years old, yes there might an issue there.

Deltona Couple

That is what I was getting at. I was curious what others might think of it as well.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

ASU2003

I would probably remember it if I was in it. So, video tape or not, I could replay it in my head.

If it was two other young teens, it becomes a gray area. If it is your best friend and his girlfriend, that is cool. If it is some drug addict dropout looking to make some money, that isn't cool. If it is a video of a amateur couple that just put their camera on a tripod and nobody forced them to make it, it's cool. If it is some older guy having sex with some 14 year old, it's not cool. If it is just a video of a naked girl showing off for her boyfriend/to get attention, she needs better guidance and parenting, but I wouldn't really have a problem with it. She might have a problem with it later in life though.

There are a lot of weird cases and such that makes it easier to say, you have to be 18 in order to do this.

ChefDylan

I believe the intent of the laws intent for child pornography is the same as it is for adults in prison.

lemme elaborate.

In both cases these individuals are seen as not able to make informed legal decisions of a sexual nature due to environmental or emotional problems.

I think most of us would like to believe in the hope that a child feels at least somewhat "safe" or "protected" in our society. We make laws to limit or prohibit what we see as violations of a sexual or abusive nature. In a good percentage, I say it that way because I dont have a study handy to give an accurate number, of child molestation or pornography cases the person who performed the act or took the photos was known to the child prior to the event.

In prison this is seen as an inability to escape a situation. When you are locked up it is very hard for a 5'6" 150lb man to tell a 6'6" 300lb man to go to hell. But the state and federal gov't see it as unlawful whether it was consentual or not.

to argue over where the age of consent is 16 or 18 is a hard road. For each of us it is different. Even at 30 years old would you say a severely mentally retarded person is able to totally understand the possible outcomes of being videotaped having sex?

I think what most child protection laws come down to is environment. We just want to give our children the best chance to grow up being slightly less messed up than we are. And I dont think there is a single one of us who, even if we waited until we were 18 to have sex, could not think of at least one person we wish we hadnt had sex with.

__________________
Duct Tape is like The Force...... There is a Dark Side, a Light Side and it holds the Universe together!

d*d

Te photo analogy is a bit misleading, it's illegal to have a photo of child pornography as it is also illegal to have a picture of a murder taking place - snuff films for instance are not legal.

It is legal to have a picture of a person who has been murdered as it is legal to have a picture of a child who has previously had a pornographic act performed upon them, it is the photo of the act - murder or child porn - that is illegal