Nudist Child Porn
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Nudist Child Porn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Jump up to: a b Cite error: The named reference doj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
^ Barbaree, H. E., and Seto, M. C. (1997). "Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment." 175-193.
^ Howells, K. (1981). "Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology," Adult sexual interest in children. 55-94.
The word('s) 'men' / 'man' are used in this article in places where it should be written 'offenders' 'people' '([child]porn)viewers' etc somebody should change the wording here so this article so it isn't biased against men. 217.132.95.133 ( talk ) 15:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'm getting sick and tired of reading this article. We need to kick Jack-a-roe out of here. He has turned this place into nothing but propaganda and a sounding board for his own journalistic opinions. When real examples are given which contradict his editorializing, he marginalized them with his catch-all justification by saying "Oh well that example is such a small percentage. " Jack-a-roe cannot give a single citation to a single legal document making any kind of reference to "a depiction of child abuse". Yet he continues to demand that is how it is defined! There is no academic or legal accuracy to what he posts here.
I think what this article needs to emphasize is that the laws in English-speaking nations (the UK-Australia-USA-Canada nexus) are no longer even considering any kind of abuse whatsoever. And it goes deeper than that now. The legal language defining child pornography no longer even makes references to what actually appears in the material. Rather they are tending towards definitions which are characterized by how the material is consumed by the end-consumer. The current laws in the UK are the most liberal in this extent. What their legal documents are doing now is that they go on for pages trying to build up arguments about how the person in possession of the material is handling it. Just to give an example; a single nude photograph of a child by Sally Mann will not get you charged with a crime. Visiting a website about nudist colonies a single time is not grounds for prosecution. However, if you show regular, repeated visits to a nudist website - that could be used as "evidence" that you were going there for pornographic reasons. Also, if you have 2 gigabytes (or so) of photos of nudist colonies, the court could use the sheer size of your stash as "evidence" that you were accumulating this for pornographic reasons. I could actually give citations to this. One citation I would include is the recent legislation in the UK involving so-called Extreme pornography . I invite anyone to read the legal document defining Extreme Pornography and you will see that my depiction of the laws in the UK above is accurate. paros ( talk ) 16:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
There sould maybe be a special entry for Canada, since there was quite a bit of debate in the country about the tolerance for the practice in BC courts. Some politicians have even been attacked as pro-child pornography, especially members of the NDP and the Liberal Party. [1] [2] ADM ( talk ) 12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've removed numerous references that implied causality with sex offending, which were not supported by the sources Andrewjlockley ( talk ) 10:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
This is not vandalism. Andrewjlockley ( talk ) 00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The maximum penalty in Australia is not 10 years, this refers only to the state of Queensland's laws. In NSW and other states its 5 years for distributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.137.193 ( talk ) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Could someone please completely rewrite this article, better still start again from scratch. Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda vehicle. Someone is trying to make it so. If I want to read propaganda I go out and buy a daily newspaper. Get rid of this rubbish. Wikipedia should be setting the standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.61.142 ( talk ) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Child pornography is both a legal and a social term referring in most incarnations to the visual recording of sexual acts involving children . Most jurisdictions have in some way or another a legal prohibition on either the production or spread of child pornography. The controversial nature of children and sex in most parts of the world make the definition of child pornography vary widely in different jurisdictions, with some holding that child pornography is simply the visual recording of sexual acts involving parties below the age of consent. And others holding different age limits for consent to sexual acts and partaking in pornography.
In both common usage and for research purposes, the word "child" in the phrase "child pornography" refers to prepubescent children, and does not refer to post-puberty teenagers . However, legal definitions of child pornography can refer to a wider range of material, including anyone under the legal age , or fictional images, according to jurisdiction [1] , and enforcement of such can vary even more between jurisdictions. Most possessors of child pornography who are arrested are found to possess images of prepubescent children; possessors of pornographic images of post-puberty minors are less likely to be prosecuted, even though those images also fall within the statutes. [1]
The majority world consensus is that child pornography is a form of sexual abuse of children. However the controversial nature of the subject and the high moral prominence makes a scientific assessment difficult and often researches regarding the effects of various legal definitions of child pornography on the children involved are ultimately contradicting. Child pornography is viewed prominently but not exclusively by those meeting the medical criteria for the paraphilic disorder paedophilia . [2] [3]
It's clear, neutral, all parties had their share, it uses only reliable sources and just shows the facts, not a view. Rajakhr ( talk ) 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The goal of prohibition of child porn is ostensibly to protect children. Nobody argues with protecting children, but people argue on and on about what is and isn't child porn. I want something more concrete. I would like to know what the cost of protecting children is. How much is spent? How many children are "saved"? How many adults are culled from civilized population and subjected to imprisonment and civil death in furtherance of this goal? How many children are culled from civilized population and subjected to imprisonment and civil death in furtherance of this goal when the laws are applied to them, like with the recent "sexting" scandals? I suspect that this is turning into a repeat of the war on drugs , with similarly flaccid results, but I wonder if anyone has any facts to show for sure one way or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.54.203 ( talk ) 05:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Child porn only applies to images, right? Because I've seen many written stories involving children as young as five. Please cite an actual US law in your answer. 75.118.170.35 ( talk ) 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
How does law treat naturist movement in terms of possession and taping of nude male and female children supposedly enjoying nature. They often are found to be in company their parents and other guardians. They regulat picture themselves including children in nude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 ( talk ) 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Would this be a good source for information? Or moreso, the study it is talking about, if there's a copy of said study that could be translated into English? Tyciol ( talk ) 04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Please note that the archives of this discussion suddenly jump from Archive_3 to Archive_10. This means that the two latest archives (10 & 11), which contain very valuable discussions, are currently orphaned!
Someone who knows how to fix these, please do it! 94.222.8.151 ( talk ) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think a section may be dedicated to the reasons for special emphasis on child porn when pornography itself is not viewed as serious offence especially in the west. The social and legal background for this distinction culled out for child porn as opposed to porn in general.
The article fails to cover the treatment of child porn and porn in the middle east. How is pornography in general in middle east and eastern and non white countries? ANd how is child porn viewed by these countries? Is it viewed at par with porn or is it viewed as a form of aggravated offence and anti social behaviour?
This section important since child porn is a frequent topic in the western world in comparison with non western countries. Child pornography in european countries like france and nordic countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 ( talk ) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The article ought to indicate to what extent the creation of child pornography is motivated by people of a homosexual orientation. Given that gay pornography is a prominent sector in pornography in general, it is quite probable that this causal relation also applies to the criminalized sector of child pornography. ADM ( talk ) 03:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Saw someone got banned few years ago for asking this, but he did seem to be insisting on there being little girls.
How about a picture of an FBI raid or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.163.16 ( talk ) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Correct me if im wrong but doesnt legal definition in the US (or some of the states) cover any images depicting nude children with the intent of pornography as child porn, I remember reading about a guy who was put on trial for having two thumbnail images on his computer that showed nude underage persons(his last name was vosbergh or something. Ill check out the five (that many is kind of suspicious to me) sources for this. Scotty Zebulon ( talk ) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
In the United Kingdom , it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if they accessed an image without saving it.
I fail to see how it can be shown that someone accessed an image if they didn't save it. Unless they were "browsing" it in which case their browser automatically saved it. In either case a saved or recovered image has to exist for evidence as isp logs or even surveilance are not enough to convict or even lawfully arrest a person. Biofase flame | stalk 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
i have heard in lectures and read in some texts (mostly non-english) that people battling this issue would prefer a term like "documentation of child sexual abuse" (or similar), can anyone confirm/correct this and if so i think it could be significant enough to mention in the article.. any thoughts? -- vike ( talk ) 05:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I found myself rewriting the beginning of the simple.wikipedia.org article on the subject - RFC (specifically around the ref:s) and please expand -- vike ( talk ) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Due to ADM's new flurry of spinoff "in location" articles, I think it would be appropriate to redirect this to Child pornography#Legal status since that's where the list of legal issues is, with links to those regions which have articles at the moment. If anyone seconds that then please take the initiative, as I have agreed not to create them anymore. Tyciol ( talk ) 06:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The citation ends up leading to a very unreliable Internet Watch Foundation annual report- which actually only says how many more sites were reported to them, which logically would go up rapidly as they grew, rather than the assumption that none of these sites existed in the first place and thus the industry must be expanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.181.104 ( talk ) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Under the legal status, subsection for Philippines, the description does not follow the convention of explaining the current legal status in that country. Instead it just talks about some incidents in the 1970's by american GI's. Does not seem very precise or on topic for the stated subsection. I'd recommend it be rewritten.-- 68.51.72.144 ( talk ) 01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Just because a piece of data appeared in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it's automatically a reliable source. For example, the data that was published saying that post-pubescent children images tend not to be prosecuted is cited by Wells Finkelhor, et al. from a paper published in 1989. It is unacceptable to report in an encyclopedia article information that was gathered twenty years ago. It's obvious child pornography has changed vastly since then. Please delete this statement until you find updated info.
This brings up another point. Yes Final Report said child pornography is child rape and is child sexual abuse. No one has still proved that either Final Report or the statement that child pornography is child rape is an objective point of view. Carbon copying that into an article and slapping on citation marks doesn't make it objective. True it is commonly associated as child sexual abuse and the visual evidence of rape. That is not what either Final Report or Mr. Tate said and the artile makes no mention to either of them. Further, it is already certain that child porn cannot be definitively and only the visual depictions of child rape. Read any legal definition of child porn, nowhere will you find where it says it must include nonconsent or rape of any kind.
Pedophiles are not the only collectors of child pornography. Again with the reliable sources. This is inaccurate. Pedophilia refers to an adult attraction to pre-pubescent children. Child pornography encompasses generally up to adolescence. An adult or middle aged man attracted to a 15 year old girl is not a pedophile, or else this country is full of perverts. And does it occur to anyone that teenagers are interested in seeing other teenagers naked? Please don't just take as true because you saw it in a newspaper or journal, especially with this already heavily biased topic in today's age. Use your judgment whether this belongs in an encyclopedia; you're supplying the rest of the world with this information so be as accurate as possible please.
However, I am not going to change it as I see fit without discussion with the community as a show of respect to the articles' contributors, and I am open to persuasion. Please do share your thoughts.
Jerrykim ( talk ) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've just removed the addition of various organisations such as the FBI and United States Postal Inspection Service from the See also section. My reason for doing this is two-fold:
If you want something like that, then I think what would best would be a separate "List of agencies that deal with child pornography" (but probably with a better title) split into sections about organisations that carry out raids, organisations that track and trace child pornographers, organisations that intercept it, etc. Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If a website contains direct links to a child porn website, but the linking site doesn't host it itself, is it still illegal to be linking directly to the illegal sick site?-- 201.166.62.107 ( talk ) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
To stop a repetition of the nauseating vandalism we saw today, I have requested permanent semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Child_pornography . If you have views, please express them there. Nunquam Dormio ( talk ) 14:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
/b/ are coming after us... see this .-- Strabismus ( talk ) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The lede of this article leaves out the important point that many countries consider "child pornography" to not only constitute images involving children but also written material depicting child abuse. This is not true in the United States but it can be confusing when you read for example the Canadian press and they talk about "written child pornography." I propose the lede of this article be modified to note the variation. Rehoboam ( talk ) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Recently I discovered a page called Criticism of child pornography laws that at first glance appeared to be a content fork, but later I agreed with the author that many of the views should be stored on their own page to avoid undue weight of fringe views on the main page.
However, it also came to my attention that such facts as that a Canadian provincial court struck down laws against possession of child pornography, and some countries and states have considered lowering the age at which it is defined or legalizing sexting between teens, were kicked out of the article as fringe by Jack-A-Roe. These do not strike me as fringe. I think the article above should be reserved mainly for true fringe material like anarchist philosophy, fringe political parties, and individual opinions. Rehoboam ( talk ) 09:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Apparently a new user had started an article on the Copine scale back in Oct. 2007. The article has had a few revision since then needed a lot of work. I've started revamping it and trying to verify the information as well as find new sources. I added a wikilink and further information link from the appropiate places in this article as well. Please check out this page and help out where you can. Thanks, Stillwaterising ( talk ) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
There is an error with the COPINE scale that needs correction. Due to the semi-protected nature of the article, I believe I'm unable to make the change. It's quite minor but important. In its current state this section claims, "In the late 1990s, the COPINE project...developed a typology to categorize child abuse images for use in both research and law enforcement". However, this is not correct. It would be much more accurate to say, "In the late 1990s, the COPINE project...developed a typology to categorize images of children found in pedophile picture collections, for use in both research and law enforcement". The wording that I have chosen is quite close to what Taylor et al used in the Police Journal when they first proposed the scale. The COPINE scale clearly extends beyond what could be thought of as 'child abuse images' so it is pertinent to make this correction. Someone please amend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.204.197 ( talk ) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think this section merits inclusion but not in its present form. Of the five references used, two are from companies that sell nudist material (=POV), one is from a blog, one is from a nudist website, and the one semi-good one looks like actual newspaper articles copy'n'pasted to a general activist website that don't seem to actually support anything said in the section. I think there's information in some of t
Japan Porn Ru
First Prolapse
Bethany Toddler Spanking