Virtual Paedophiles

Rusks anyone?

In the article they quote the police chief as saying “it would be wrong to argue that because no real children were depicted in such “synthetic” images – that no-one was harmed.” But their argument seems to be that “a paedophile could move along that scale of offending from thought, to synthetic, to actually the abuse of a live child”. Well of course they could, but we don’t arrest people for what they could do, or we’d all be in trouble.

If a cop or any member of the criminal justice system said contrary or supported it I'd be very bloody surprised. Their chosen profession would fully preclude them from taking a supportive stance as part of their roles, especially the police as the proactive prevention of crime is part of their remit.

Many years ago I reported on a court case of an old bloke who'd been nicked with composite photograph/pencil indecent images of children.

He was convicted of possession of indecent images IIRC. I think it's probably correct that such material is illegal, regardless of whether it's actual photos, AI or newspaper and pencil collages.

AI gives the technical capability, not the moral choices on how it is used.

The question moves from was it and actual child or an AI generated one to a question of should it be legal to want to see or own such images.

What images are acceptable and which are not : https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/broken-images

a question of should it be legal to want

That really would be thought crime....

Well of course they could, but we don’t arrest people for what they could do, or we’d all be in trouble.

We already have plenty of offenses on statute for things you could do eg possession of an offensive weapon, going equipped etc.

The crime for which you are arrested / prosecuted harms no one....

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online.

Is this even a thing? I mean I've never once thought to myself; I know, today I'll search for kiddie porn and see what turns up. As for the Cop's comment, well of course he says that, Images of this sort are illegal, it's a clear as day, it doesn't matter how they're generated.

But I’m struggling to see the difference between an AI generated image and art/literature.

there is a difference between art and porn. porn is created with the sole intention to sexually arouse where as art is far more nuanced. i don’t think ai child porn is designed with aesthetics in mind, though no doubt it could be argued that the images are designed to provoke reactions other than one that is sexual.

the intention of the person who created the images would need to be considered along with it’s artistic contribution, but really 99 times out of 100 i think everyone would see what the intention was.

it’s a very interesting question and makes me think of video games or tv shows that depict graphic violence and crime. there are controls on these things for a reason.

ask yourself, if you learned that  someone who you know possessed sketches of children being sexually abused or raped, would you think that they were potentially dangerous and in need of help? how would you feel about someone collecting nazi memorabilia?  or hoarding guns?

as a society we need to decide when something is unacceptable.

or hoarding guns?

What about hoarding virtual guns eg in Minecraft?

Should they be locked up as well?

Or killing someone in a video game...

Thinking about ie, as a society we are 100% ok with killing people in video games, but abusing a child in a video game would be a complete outrage. I find that a bit of a conundrum...

someone collecting nazi memorabilia

Now ya see...

I own two German coins from 1943. They have swastikas and eagles on them. I have no other 'stuff' like this.

Does that make me a collector of Nazi memorabilia? I own them because of their history and they give me chills whenever I handle them but I'm no danger to anyone. So should I be censured? Really??

hmm it seems the post that I'm quoting from has disappeared!

From a practical point of view - how does the AI generate this sort of thing? Doesn't it need some sort of correctly tagged real images in the web archives to reproduce it?

Does that make me a collector of Nazi memorabilia?

^^ >> I wouldn't click on it with a 40 foot barge pole <<
This was a subject that poor old Pete Townshend was (genuinely)trying to research for the greater good.
What could possibly go wrong.

What about hoarding virtual guns eg in Minecraft?

Should they be locked up as well?

Or killing someone in a video game…

Thinking about ie, as a society we are 100% ok with killing people in video games, but abusing a child in a video game would be a complete outrage….

minecraft i’d quite odd in that you can kill innocent people. grand theft auto, is widely criticized, there was a game a long while back that was banned because of the violence. however, most killing in video games is done in a war scenario i think, so is to some extent socially acceptable.

but the obvious difference between hoarding guns in video games and AI child porn is that most people are born with the physical means to abuse a child, where as hoarding actual guns in the UK is not permitted.

i wouldn’t argue that violent video games or violence on tv are harmless, either

but i would argue that a gun collector doesn’t necessarily want to kill people, im not sure that the someone possessing AI generated child porn would have innocent intentions

most people would know that possessing images of child abuse for their own sexual gratification is very wrong.

i understand the question that you are asking, and i’m not getting hysterical because of the children, but i think generating ai images of illegal acts for sexual gratification is a way past a thought crime.

OP, do you have any children in your life? son, daughter, niece or nephew? a neighbour’s pleasant child? how would you feel if it was one of those children depicted in the images? or any specific child? would that move the idea of thought crime towards the physical?

From a practical point of view – how does the AI generate this sort of thing? Doesn’t it need some sort of correctly tagged real images in the web archives to reproduce it?

good question

From a practical point of view – how does the AI generate this sort of thing? Doesn’t it need some sort of correctly tagged real images in the web archives to reproduce it?

Very much this for me. The AI must be trained - hence I think the police are correct - its wrong to say no one was harmed in the creation of the images.

Is this even a thing?

It is. A mate of mine is a probation officer who works with sex offenders in the community and he's told me all sorts of stories of people who've come across his desk who he firmly believes are not peadophiles but who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet. Don't think it's very common (because they rarely get caught unless the cops are investigating something else) but it does happen.

Rusks anyone?

10 mins later and im still s****ing at this.

who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet.

And why did the police come knocking? Mrs100th used to be PPU so investigated this stuff and is now OMU manages these offenders. A lot of her offenders believe they are innocent from the arse grabbers through the rapists to the kiddie fiddler's, she's still to meet one who has nothing concrete or corroborated against them.

Very much this for me. The AI must be trained – hence I think the police are correct – its wrong to say no one was harmed in the creation of the images.

I doubt that, at least I very much doubt there was much child porn involved. Lots of normal porn (which no doubt does harm some people), lots of photos of kids of all ages, and the AI just mixes them up.

he firmly believes are not peadophiles but who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet.

I imagine it’s pretty hard to accidentally stumble across indecent pics of children. I suspect you have to actively go looking for it, in some dark corner of the web. I don’t think that’s a ‘momentary decision’.

Likewise, I also suspect the people that get done by the law for viewing this filth aren’t found guilty because they accidentally clicked on a link on one solidarity occasion, before immediately closing their browser …

there is a difference between art and porn. porn is created with the sole intention to sexually arouse where as art is far more nuanced.

And *you* might think this difference is very clear, but in reality you're reliant on the police and courts agreeing with your interpretation. And they might not.

If drawing a picture of illegal porn is criminal (or, even owning such a picture) then why not other criminal acts?

Should we be arresting actors who play the part of murderers? I'm sure I've got some articles in my browser history that describe some unsavoury acts...such as the BBC news pages.

I imagine it’s pretty hard to accidentally stumble across indecent pics of children.

It's probably easier than you think: search for enough "barely legal" porn or similar and I'd have thought you'd get at least some 16-17 year old girls.

I've seen Manga images that are quite problematic from that perspective. No, I'm not searching for links, nor did I save bookmarks. Should that be banned or regulated too? Clearly you cannot prove the age of a suitably drawn cartoon character but we all know what the designs are meant to evoke.

However, it could be a case of 'or' not 'and'. Maybe better to have people looking at generated images instead of real ones?

If drawing a picture of illegal porn is criminal (or, even owning such a picture) then why not other criminal acts?

a picture of someone robbing a bank isn’t illegal, nor would be a picture of someone making child porn assuming that you could not see the abuse occurring.

handling the proceeds of a bank robbery is illegal.

However, it could be a case of ‘or’ not ‘and’. Maybe better to have people looking at generated images instead of real ones?

comes back to the question of how AI learns

Should we be arresting actors who play the part of murderers?

this is a bit of a leap.

Mogrim, firstly if that particular search phrase was in your your browsing history,  I would hope it was a trigger to put you on a “person of interest” list with the authorities as <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> that sounds awfully like you’re brazenly going out searching for the worst stuff possible. </span>

I'm fairly comfortable with images of non consesual abuse being illegal, whether its "real" people, AI or cartoons.

What images are acceptable and which are not : https://christianhistoryinstitute

Yeah, the christians are the ones to advise here! Me and a mate, long ago in pre-filtered internet times, challenged each other to send the most disgusting images off the web. Christian Fundamentalists with their "THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL GET ON THE INTERNET!!" images were the winners. I'd have probably forgotten we did this, but the scatological image I sent him disturbs him to this day 😆

I’m fairly comfortable with images of non consesual abuse being illegal, whether its “real” people, AI or cartoons.

Should images of murder be illegal too?

The Guardian has a video up right now of someone being shot. It might not have been illegal, that'll take the courts to decide. Do you feel lucky enough to click on the link?

Does that make me a collector of Nazi memorabilia? I own them because of their history and they give me chills whenever I handle them but I’m no danger to anyone. So should I be censured? Really??

i see the point that you are making, but i was thinking more like a person who has a secret room full of flags, more like a shrine than a collection of historic artifacts. the connection to the AI porn being that they could claim to be a collector because they admire the graphic design.

is having nazi stuff illegal in the UK? genuine question.

anyway , time for me to get up and on with the day. probably won’t look back into this thread, as it has the look of something that will degenerate into point scoring and misunderstanding.

What about hoarding virtual guns eg in Minecraft?

In Minecraft's defence, it doesn't have guns at all. You can kill innocent creatures, e.g. animals or villagers, with the weapons you'd use to kill enemies (swords, usually), but there's no game-reward gratification in it other than gaining animal meat or skins. It's not like GTA where killing people actually rewards you in the game.

Back on topic, a friend is on the sex offenders register because his ISP reported him searching online for child abuse images. The sad thing is he was looking for images of himself as a child, to try and pursue a case against the man who'd abused him many years ago, because he knew there had been photographs and was trying to find them. He'd drawn crude pictures of what those images might look like - and those were also classed as "indecent images" when it was all investigated - so I don't think it matters whether the images are AI generated, drawn in green crayon, or actual photographs.

Should images of murder be illegal too?

Obviously not.

Child abuse images are illegal for a specific reason. Whataboutery doesn't apply here.

he firmly believes are not peadophiles but who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet.

My understanding is that paedophiles develop their taste for paedophilia over a period of time. It might well start off as simply curiosity, at which point they are not actually paedophiles, but it then leads to ever greater exposure and an endless spiral of escalating depravity.

I believe that the curiosity is often triggered by boredom with mainstream porn.

So yeah, I am hugely comfortable with coming down like a ton of bricks on those who momentarily make a stupid mistake, even before they become full-on paedophiles.

is having nazi stuff illegal in the UK? genuine question.

No, there was a large auction recently, it was in the news as most large auction houses wouldn't touch it, but one in NI went ahead IIRC.

Thing about paedos - and any sexual preference/urge/kink/fetish.. it can't be helped*, can it? So letting them loose on AI, disgusting as it is to us normal folk, would give them an outlet without harming actual kids. Obviously you gotta lock em all up on a seperate island from the rest of humanity first, so they don't "move along that scale of offending"...

*I had this discussion with a police officer who worked in child protection I was dating. I had to stop dating her cos she wanted to talk about her work too much and it was horrible.

Should images of murder be illegal too?

Images of children being sexual abused are created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for sexual abusing children, does anyone doubt that?

Images of a murder, in say an Agatha Christie film, are not created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for committing murder. In fact it is to satisfy people's innate desire to see murder crimes solved and murderers apprehended.

I am surprised that needs to be explained.

Some points to ponder:

- AI isn't as intelligent as you think - it gets trained on a bank of other images in order to create more similar images.  There's still a victim (or actually lot of them) somewhere in the system.  I'm not sure transposing a non sexual image of kids into legal adult porn is in anyway not creating a victim.
- As AI gets better it becomes almost impossible to identify original images from AI modified ones.  If AI images were "exempt" you'd provide a nice defence for anyone caught this real images unless you can find the kid / room etc.
- creating a drawing from illegal images is likely viewed as creating a copy - which it the offence most people are prosecuted for (downloading by its nature creates a copy).
- dash - your probation officer friend sounds a bit dodgy to be honest; does he really believe that multiple people end up in front of him because they accidentally did something illegal.  Or does he mean, I might have clicked those links too.  Or if someone sent me those images I'd not have deleted them either.

I’ve seen Manga images that are quite problematic from that perspective

Hentai.

hentai
hĕn′tī″
noun
A style of sexually explicit comic books, animated video, and computer games originally developed in Japan.
A work of anime or manga (or any similar medium) that contains sexual or pornographic art.
Plural form of hentai.

Common in Japan, and covers a multitude of different types. There’s a lot of fanfic hentai, involving fictional characters from books, tv and cinema crossing over from different series and genres.
As a lot of manga and animé involves school kids, deciding just how old they are, relative to what they’re doing in relationships can get somewhat complicated and problematic, particularly when some artists styles can have adult characters looking very childlike.

I’m not particularly interested in animé or manga these days, and when I was, it was the likes of ‘Akira’, ‘Alita, Battle Angel’, ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’, ‘Ghost in the Shell’, and ‘Grey’. Even ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’ had school kids, teenagers as the main characters, and their relationships could, to some extent, seem a bit problematic.

Still, when you consider that many US states allow legal marriage of a 14yo to an adult, things are even more complicated.

Not really sure what I think about that. Bottom line is there are people whose sexual arousal and pleasure is totally linked to children, and it's natural for people to want to at least partly satisfy those desires. Other than total abstension, which might be realistic for some but not all, is this just the best option? Basically a methadone analogue, a way of meeting an unavoidable desire with a least-bad option, for those that there's no good alternatives?

But then, there is probably a tranche of potential users who resist because they hate how the material is produced, who might be drawn back into it by the AI images, and there's probably a likelihood of more and more extreme material becoming available for the same reason, stuff that people can't stomach or that would be stamped out if it were real can definitely be tolerated when it's not, that happens already. But is the effect on the brain any different? Does it normalise things that shouldn't be?

In the end, is it purely a balance of harm thing or is there a higher morality than that? And if it's balance of harm, how do we make that calculation? Are we just guessing?

A mate of mine is a probation officer who works with sex offenders in the community and he’s told me all sorts of stories of people who’ve come across his desk

Ewwww.

I believe Pete Townshend has an excellent chapter in his book about this.......

Ewwww.

FFS not like that. 😕

You do realise that you’re all now on a watch list. Shit! Now so am I!

I googled earlier to see whether I could find figures for the percentage of paedophiles who had themselves been abused as children (which would suggest that you are not necessarily "born" a paedophile) but I struggled to find any definitive research and then decided that it was an area that I shouldn't be spending too much googling. Plus the whole subject is so deeply depressing that I gave up.

Images of children being sexual abused are created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for sexual abusing children, does anyone doubt that?

Images of a murder, in say an Agatha Christie film, are not created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for committing murder. In fact it is to satisfy people’s innate desire to see murder crimes solved and murderers apprehended.

I am surprised that needs to be explained.

What about images of child abuse as part of a drama where the purpose is then to "satisfy people’s innate desire to see child abuse crimes solved and paedophiles apprehended"

I know in reality this is 'tastefully' done, you don't need to see what is happening to be able to know what is happening. But I'm another that isn't entirely sure why one is OK and the other not. In some cases is the purpose of art not to cause revulsion and that feeling of disgust to make the point how wrong it is?

This threads going a bit pete tong! The thread title had me thinking that Oculus or Apple Vision were going a bit dark with their releases!

Anyway, only reason for this post is that i used to think when people were charged it was due to photoshopping images, as they always said something like making indecent images or the likes with the charges, which always made me think what the hell kind of person does that kind of stuff, but then found out it was actually the legal term for downloading images.

but then found out it was actually the legal term for downloading images.

While that’s often the case, making the image, ie being the photographer, still or video, carries even more weight in court, downloading, sharing and viewing are part of the process for sure. I would guess that creating AI images would be seen as no different to creating photographic images, the fact that the images are entirely computer generated wouldn’t matter to a court of law, they would be considered to be offensive and of an obscene nature. Painted works of art have been removed from public display, and books have been removed from sale, like Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and those are merely words on a page: painting pictures with words… 😉

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online. It seems to be getting close to thought crime.

There's a palpable difference between unintentionally clicking on something online that looks a bit dodgy and turning to the dark web to trade pics of children being abused with like minded individuals.

The law already covers the creation of images that depict child abuse as such.  TBH, it might shock you to learn that until 1992, a certain well known red-top tabloid regularly published pictures of girls aged under eighteen on it's third page and has even been known to publish photographs taken at some undetermined point in the past on the subject's sixteenth birthday.   Eww.

I don't think showing pictures of 17 year old people posing for photos in a 'controlled' environment count as paedophilia do they.

I don’t think showing pictures of 17 year old people posing for photos in a ‘controlled’ environment count as paedophilia do they.

The actual definition can be difficult to pin down.  However, it doesn't stop it making your skin crawl.  And the fact it was in one of the best, if not the best, selling newspaper in the UK just makes it truly horrific.

I'm hoping the days where, 'If there's grass on the pitch let's play' is an acceptable mainstream attitude are gone.

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online.

Maybe David Cameron had the right idea and we should only be allowed to look at government approved pornography.

Although I worry that, even though I like to think I have sick tastes, they are nothing compared to what your average Tory MP is into.

The world is definitely a better place without Page 3, but I don’t think it meets any accurate definition of paedophilia.

Maybe we could ask Stacey, 20, from Watford, for her considered opinion.

I don’t think showing pictures of 17 year old people posing for photos in a ‘controlled’ environment count as paedophilia do they.

Assuming Wikipedia is correct ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978), then I'm afraid in the UK you're guilty of looking at child porn.

Samantha Fox was 16 years old when she was persuaded to show her breasts to Sun readers.

Was it legal? Yes just about obviously otherwise the Sun would have been prosecuted.

Did it titillate paedophiles like Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile? Very likely I would have thought.

Was morally justifiable? No of course not. They simply found a loophole in the child protection laws. Even pornographers stick to the no under 18 years old rule.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/12/samantha-fox-glamour-model-fame-16-stalkers-david-cassidy

During her shoot as a finalist in the Sunday People competition, the photographer told her that “having such ample bosoms and such tiny hips was so unusual”. Summing up her appeal, he told her: “You have the face of a child and the body of a woman.

“When I think about it now, it sounds a bit creepy, to be honest, but he liked that I was very natural, no makeup,” she says. She puts her success as a Page 3 model down to her professionalism and enthusiasm as well as her looks.

Towards the end of the shoot, the photographer encouraged her to do a few topless pictures, promising they weren’t for publication – just to show the editors. Her father took a little convincing, but her mother, she writes, “was about to burst with pride and had no doubts”. Fox was grateful for the opportunity. “You only had to look around where I lived,” she writes. “There were plenty of people who had kids young. Plenty who were unemployed. Plenty who had rough, low-paying jobs.”

Fox came second in the competition, but despite the photographer’s promises, her bare breasts were printed on the Sunday People front page. Her headteacher was not amused.

This was a 16 year old.

Let's face it, if it wasn't strictly speaking pedophilia, it was pedophilia adjacent.

Wasn’t that the 18 limit the result of an amendment to the legislation in 2003 previously it was 16?

Also it’s not “child porn”, it it is indecent images of children or child abuse. The use of porn risks normalising or belittling a horrible crime.

With regards to AI pseudo-images is nothing new and has been prosecuted before.

As mentioned above it can be fairly difficult to click on a link inadvertently but it does happen a MPS officer who was sent something via WhatsApp springs to mind and I dealt with the aftermath of an online forum where the subject matter couldn’t be ascertained from the forum name. It was also in a geeky bit of the internet, IRC, so people who were IRC geeks might click on it wondering what it was and click off straight away as the front page was explicit. A decision was taken not to investigate users who clicked on once and for less than ten seconds as it was accepted these would be innocent browsers.

Wasn’t that the 18 limit the result of an amendment to the legislation in 2003 previously it was 16?

Yeah, that's in the Wikipedia link I posted earlier. 16 year olds on page 3 were legal at the time, but wouldn't be now.

Wasn’t that the 18 limit the result of an amendment to the legislation in 2003 previously it was 16?

Also it’s not “child porn”, it it is indecent images of children or child abuse.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying but why do you think that the legislation was amended in 2003?

I assume it was because indecent images of a 16 year old was considered unacceptable.

The use of porn risks normalising or belittling a horrible crime.

Who to? Not on this forum it certainly doesn't.

Because s7 of the Protection of Children Act details the change and references the legislation producing the change. Before 2003, possibly in the time of Ms Fox being photographed I don’t know when that was, it was 16 and then it was amended by legislation to 18 in 2003, which would render the same creation of images now illegal (if it was adjudged to be an indecent image).

I don’t know what caused the change in age limit to occur, it could be a culmination of a number or concerns.

Who to? Not on this forum it certainly doesn’t.

Mate, it's not up for debate.

We don't say "child porn" any more. It's the wrong word.

I don’t know what caused the change in age limit to occur, it could be a culmination of a number or concerns.

I am surprised that you have detailed knowledge of section 7 of the Protection of Children Act 2003 but your knowledge doesn't extend to what caused the change.

Would you not hazard a guess?

[i]We don't say child porn anymore[/i]

Used 6 times on page 1 (not by me, I don't think) and still sounds like absolutely the most disgusting thing possible when I read those 2 words together. But hey, I'm probably too thick to discuss these things with you people so I'll leave you to it.

Used 6 times on page 1

It's not something I'd ever thought of but we all know language is important.  I probably would have said it myself without thinking but now it's been pointed out it's obviously the wrong thing to say.

The issue is that porn is completely normal and OK.  Child porn normalises child abuse by making it sound like just another option on the menu of preferences given on your preferred outlet.

As the Sun showed, attitudes were/are far too relaxed to very young girls being sexualised.  Mainstream attitudes just mean that 'extreme' attitudes move even further into the realm of horrific.   So removing normalising language from our everyday use might not make much difference but attitudes change by inches at a time, not miles.

Like I said, I hadn't given it any thought until now so I'm glad it's been pointed out.

I am surprised that you have detailed knowledge of section 7 of the Protection of Children Act 2003 but your knowledge doesn’t extend to what caused the change.

Not really that odd, I worked in operational child protection at CEOP but it was long after 2003 so I was used to the legislation but did not need to know the history of it.

Guessing? Public outcry over issues like Ms Fox, creating a clear gap between an adult and a child body image i.e removing the it’s a 16 year old not a 14 year old defence, maybe bringing it into line with other legislation / conventions (UN convention a child is under 18), who knows

who knows

I thought it was fairly obvious. "Protection of Children Act" suggests that it was introduced to protect children. A 16 year old is often legally considered to be a child.

Edit: It suggests that taking semi nude photographs of a 16 year old is harmful.

I thought it was fairly obvious. “Protection of Children Act” suggests that it was introduced to protect children.

I think we may be at slightly crossed tangents, I agree with what you say about protection but I have no idea what specifically led to the change in 2003 - the Protection of Children Act was passed with 16 as the relevant age in1978 and it was changed in 2003 by a different piece of legislation.

Usually there is a catalyst to cause changes such as an appeal showing issues or anomalies with current legislation (such as the European court stating that Police interference with private property not actually being covered under legislation hence the relevant parts of the Police Act being drafted) but I don’t know what the catalyst(s) was in this matter.

BruceWee
Full Member

The issue is that porn is completely normal and OK.

There is porn that is not completely normal and OK, though. Pretty much no matter where you are on that moral compass there's stuff out there that you're going to eventually say, no, that's never appropriate.

I think that's probably where this word choice thing isn't so simple? I've probably said "child porn" in this thread, and I will again but that's because I don't think that saying "porn" normalises it at all. And tbh I think it's a pretty massive mistake to think that way about normal porn, unless we're breaking off subsections and saying "that's a separate thing from porn in the same way that child porn is"

And yet, you can still have sex with them, marry them and then join the armed forces with them.

I'm not suggesting one is any better than the other but it's certainly very mixed messages.

There is porn that is not completely normal and OK, though.

Sure, there's also cinema that is not completely normal and OK.  Doesn't make cinema in general not completely normal and OK.

Porn is made with consenting adults.  If it wasn't consensual and/or they weren't adults then it's not porn, it's a crime.

16,17,18,19 years old - all semantics and arbitrary numbers to me.  There is clearly a big difference between a 5 year old and a 17 year old but a line has to be drawn somewhere which was 16 and is now 18.  What will it be in the future, 21 and would that appear a bit silly to you today (it would to me).

What will it be in the future, 21 and would that appear a bit silly to you today (it would to me).

Depends what you're talking about.

If you're talking about the age of consent then that's obviously a very complex subject and has many factors such as the age difference, if one person is in a position of authority, etc.  It's pretty much impossible to boil down to a single number but we do it anyway.

If you're talking about appearing topless in a national newspaper or on a website then maybe raising the age to 21 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Or possibly change the definition so that models have to 'look' at least 25.  Obviously that's open to interpretation but it's a policy that's used some places when buying alcohol.  'If we think you look under 25 you will be asked for id.'

I think the further we can get away from sexualising very young girls the better.

Did it titillate paedophiles like Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile? Very likely I would have thought.

Sam Fox would not titillate a paedophile. Think about it.

The world has changed its outlook massively in my 54 years on the planet. Topless pictures of 16 year olds and teachers having relationships with 6th formers are now, quite rightly, illegal.

But these are social constructs. The age of consent, iirc, didn’t exist before the Victorians, and other countries have different laws around that to us.

Over the years I've known* women who have modeled from Page 3 level to hardcore. All of them were responsible over 18s at when they made their choices.
*not in the biblical sense.

I think the further we can get away from sexualising very young girls the better.

Definitely this. And some sports and dance groups need to think very carefully how they expect girls/women to dress and act.

I think the further we can get away from sexualising very young girls the better.

Yep, and a LONG way to go on that.   Still not a paedophilia issue to me though as that is very different.

Sam Fox would not titillate a paedophile. Think about it.

I wouldn't know that, and thinking about it won't help.

But a comment was made earlier on this thread that apparently the appeal Sam Fox had, when she was 16 and was conned into having her breasts photographed for publication, was that she had the face of a child but the body of a woman, apparently according to the photographer.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I knew I could rely on you for some robust opinions 🙂

I'm still not sure exactly what I think about the original issue as I find myself agreeing with comments from all sides.

It's a tricky issue to discuss as most of us have a pretty fixed view on what is and is not acceptable when it comes to sex that we don't really think should be up for discussion. But most of us are also willing to accept that other people should be allowed to do things that we find distasteful or morally wrong, up to a point. I guess what I'm trying to get clear in my own mind is where that point should be.

I used to think it was quite clear. Anything that harms children is wrong (I guess we can all agree on that one). Looking at pictures of child abuse may not directly harm the children but it encourages that abuse so is clearly (in my opinion) wrong. But once you get to people looking at "representations" (assuming children weren't harmed in the production) I just think it gets a lot trickier. The argument just seems to be "these people are sick" but there is lots of questionable behaviour that we do tolerate.

Apparently it's OK for consenting adults to dress as children for some "harmless"  bedroom fun. I heard a stand up comedian recently talking about how she was worried that if she died her family might find "that folder marked schoolgirls" on her computer and not realise it was "just" 20-somethings dressed as schoolgirls and I though "but why do you think that is OK?". Is it ever OK for someone to call a partner "daddy" in the bedroom? The whole spanking fetish seems to be based around abusive adult/child experiences, but is tolerated. Porn made by consenting adults is apparently "fine" but we know some of the "actors" in those scenes were abused as children. It's not OK to abuse children so why is it OK to carry on abusing them once they turn 18?

We seem to have accepted the line that we are not going to try to legislate people's fantasies no matter how distasteful they make us feel.

I thought the drug analogy earlier was interesting. In both cases the policy of going after the users doesn't seem to be solving the problem. I keep seeing articles about the "shocking" rise of child abuse content online. Every site that gets taken down seems to net hundreds of thousands of users and yet the "trade" still grows. If AI generated images are the methodone does banning them actually just increase demand for the "real" stuff and do more harm?

I actually thought the best argument against allowing the AI generated stuff was what you do when it becomes impossible to differentiate AI from "real" images. I'm comfortable with the line that anything that harms children is wrong and whatever you might think about the effectiveness of going after the "users" I'm sure we all want the law enforcement agencies to be able to identify the victims (and the people directly abusing them). That would become much harder if you couldn't tell the fake from the real images. So, in that sense I think I could argue that an AI generated image of child abuse is causing harm.

it might shock you to learn that until 1992, a certain well known red-top tabloid regularly published pictures of girls aged under eighteen on it’s third page

Worse still, they had a countdown for Samantha Fox who was 15, for her 16th birthday, when they could legally publish pics of her topless. Think that was the Sun.

They were publishing pics of her in a tight top, low cut even though she was 15 at the time.

Exceedingly seedy.

I don't think it was the Sun. I have a vague recollection of the Daily Star doing countdowns for 15 year olds, publishing revealing, but not nude, photos of them.

The mainstream media making lecherous comments about 15 year old girls and lusting after them was somehow seen as more acceptable :

https://nybreaking.com/charlotte-church-recalls-the-time-chris-moyles-offered-to-sleep-with-her-after-she-turned-16/

I can't imagine that Chris Moyles wouldn't be sacked for making the same comment today.

The whole spanking fetish seems to be based around abusive adult/child experiences

According to who?

Porn made by consenting adults is apparently “fine”

According to who?

but we know some of the “actors” in those scenes were abused as children. It’s not OK to abuse children so why is it OK to carry on abusing them once they turn 18?

Who says they are continuing to be abused?

If AI generated images are the methodone does banning them actually just increase demand for the “real” stuff and do more harm?

You have that the wrong way round. Methodone gets given to existing addicts to get them and doesn't allow them to quit since its more addictive than the drug it's replacing.