Show profile
Link to this post
Subject: Child Porn, Real or Imagined (NSFW FFS!)
The other day while traipsing merrily through the internets, I found something interesting. Someone has created artificial child porn by taking photos of (admittedly young) adults and modifying them to look like children. The changes are subtle, involving little more than some shading to reduce wrinkles and shadows, some creative adjustments of the outside lines to remove things like hipbones, and finally, enlarging the head just a little to create a smaller-looking body.
Here's the image I found, I have no idea if there are millions more, but this is the only one I've seen:
![[Image: /grafx/FakingIt.jpg]](/grafx/FakingIt.jpg "/grafx/FakingIt.jpg")
Now, this is really a strange new thing to me, and it raises all kinds of interesting questions.
Let's start with the legal one: If sexual photos of real children is illegal, and wholly created images (CG, comics, etc) are also illegal (depending on where you live), what about the image of a girl who is provably old enough, but has been modified like the above?
Is this really the creation of child porn, or is it more like an adult wearing a schoolgirl's uniform and sucking on an oversize lollypop? I would guess that the letter of the law would say that the existence of this image is illegal, and I bet it becomes a shitload more illegal if you lose or disconnect the original.
Now, the ethical question: Should this alarm anyone? I'm of the opinion that real children should be kept safe from harm but that virtual ones can be stolen, abused and thrown in the chipper without real world repercussions.
The naked human body does not scare me as it does some, and a child in a bath would only be porn if the child was in close proximity with an erect penis. A naked child on a bed might be more suggestive, but in my mind there's a world of difference between suggestion and and outright presentation.
So personally, I do not find this image erotic, and I do not believe that it is objectionable when connected to the original, merely interesting. I do however believe it's probably illegal, moreso if it were the whole-body shot as it was when I found it.
Now, question of ownership. While the creation and enjoyment of these images may be indicative of the kind of person none of us wish to know, this particular image would raise a cautionary flag in my mind (especially if I found it without the original) but it's not necessarily child porn, nor would the owner necessarily be a dangerous person.
Some might get off on it, but I surely don't. Which brings us full circle: Is this sort of thing inherently dodgy? Is it illegal? Should it be?
Finally, the what if: What if the image was a young girl made to look older? In this image it's easy to spot the original vs the edit, but in an image pair where the source could not reliably be identified? How does that change the equation?
Now, if only plastic surgeons were as effective as the photoshoppers, the period of our youth could be indefinite.
Here's the image I found, I have no idea if there are millions more, but this is the only one I've seen:
Now, this is really a strange new thing to me, and it raises all kinds of interesting questions.
Let's start with the legal one: If sexual photos of real children is illegal, and wholly created images (CG, comics, etc) are also illegal (depending on where you live), what about the image of a girl who is provably old enough, but has been modified like the above?
Is this really the creation of child porn, or is it more like an adult wearing a schoolgirl's uniform and sucking on an oversize lollypop? I would guess that the letter of the law would say that the existence of this image is illegal, and I bet it becomes a shitload more illegal if you lose or disconnect the original.
Now, the ethical question: Should this alarm anyone? I'm of the opinion that real children should be kept safe from harm but that virtual ones can be stolen, abused and thrown in the chipper without real world repercussions.
The naked human body does not scare me as it does some, and a child in a bath would only be porn if the child was in close proximity with an erect penis. A naked child on a bed might be more suggestive, but in my mind there's a world of difference between suggestion and and outright presentation.
So personally, I do not find this image erotic, and I do not believe that it is objectionable when connected to the original, merely interesting. I do however believe it's probably illegal, moreso if it were the whole-body shot as it was when I found it.
Now, question of ownership. While the creation and enjoyment of these images may be indicative of the kind of person none of us wish to know, this particular image would raise a cautionary flag in my mind (especially if I found it without the original) but it's not necessarily child porn, nor would the owner necessarily be a dangerous person.
Some might get off on it, but I surely don't. Which brings us full circle: Is this sort of thing inherently dodgy? Is it illegal? Should it be?
Finally, the what if: What if the image was a young girl made to look older? In this image it's easy to spot the original vs the edit, but in an image pair where the source could not reliably be identified? How does that change the equation?
Now, if only plastic surgeons were as effective as the photoshoppers, the period of our youth could be indefinite.
BLEARGH
![[Image: http://nfgworld.com/grafx/FakingIt2T.jpg]](http://nfgworld.com/grafx/FakingIt2T.jpg "http://nfgworld.com/grafx/FakingIt2T.jpg")
This post was edited on 2010-04-29, 10:16 by