The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Images of children: there's no harm in looking > Comments

Images of children: there's no harm in looking : Comments

By Bob Ryan, published 25/7/2017

The crime of child sexual abuse is not in the image, nor is it in the looking; it is in the abusive act itself.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A lot of people who view child pornography aren't even attracted to children, they do it to confirm their own feelings of worthlessness; the internal monologue goes something like: "I'm so disgusting and useless, this is the sort of thing I should be looking at, I know I'm already the lowest form of life on the planet and this just confirms it".
OCD also plays a part, child pornography is difficult to obtain and this personality type gets addicted to the chase for ever more extreme, or novel images; sort of like a gruesome game of "Top Trumps" with other collectors.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 26 July 2017 5:31:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judging by some of the comments on my article, some don’t understand what portrayals of children are illicit. I'll try to explain it in three successive posts.
Under the old law (pre-2010), which is typical of all States:
“child pornography” means material that depicts or describes (or appears to depict or describe), in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is (or appears to be) a child: (a) engaged in sexual activity, or (b) in a sexual context, or (c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context).
In this case, (a) and (b) conform to our working definition, although (b) is vague, but (c) would fit if the phrase “whether or not” were deleted.
The new law (NSW Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material Bill 2010) which became effective in April 2010, was introduced thus:
The new provisions, which are modelled on the Commonwealth provisions, specifically extend to a greater range of material, including material that depicts or describes the private parts of a child. The material concerned will now be referred to as child abuse material. "Child abuse material" is defined as material that depicts or describes in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive: first, a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse; second; a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, whether or not in the presence of other persons; third, a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity; or, fourth, the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be a child. (See NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard March 10 2010 at page 21195.)
To be continued.
Posted by Robert99, Wednesday, 26 July 2017 5:54:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two immediate lines of opposing reasoning here. First, it could be argued that the provisions of the new law are so vague that, taken together with Taylor and Quayle’s (TQ) typology of child pornography, no picture of any child in any circumstance could escape suspicion—the unwilling boy soldier included. Indeed, by that reasoning, all 13 images at the end of this chapter are suspect. Second, the opposite could be true—the phrase “in all the circumstances” could let all non-sexual images of children out of the section because there is no definition of what constitutes a “sexual pose”.
It might be instructive here to list the first five levels of TQ’s ten “different kinds of child pornography”.
1. Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes, etc. from either commercial sources or family albums; pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness
2. Pictures of semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings and from legitimate sources.
3. Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4. Deliberately posed pictures of children fully, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organisation suggests sexual interest).
5. Deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses (TQ: 32)
Posted by Robert99, Wednesday, 26 July 2017 6:00:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Depending on the content, level 5 might include pornographic images but to to include levels 1-4 as kinds of child pornography does not assist in distinguishing images of the sexual abuse of children from other images. Photographers like Henson, Sturgess, Mann, Mapplethorpe and Leibovitz have all taken many pictures that would be classed as level 4, but to extend that description to suggest those artists had a sexual interest in children would be unfair, to say the least. (They’ve all had a spot of bother about their pics too.)
TQ’s pornography level 10(b): “Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child” is unarguably pornography but 10(a) is not: “Pictures showing a child being tied, bound, beaten, whipped or otherwise subject to something that implies pain”. This latter offends against the new law’s “child abuse” definition.
I trust this is helpful to the discussion. Meanwhile I’m working on an article that illustrates how the law has made us adopt the paedophile’s gaze when looking at children and their images. I remember my pre-teen days when a man (any man) would, in passing, ruffle my then blonde hair and say something like “how are you going snowball”. Would anyone be game to do that sort of thing now?
Posted by Robert99, Wednesday, 26 July 2017 6:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
No I don't think that image should be banned, but you'd have to be pretty sick and twisted to enjoy looking at those things.
I don't know the artists reasons behind painting such things; not sure they were painted to be enjoyed or from something she experienced or what exactly she was trying to convey.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 27 July 2017 1:40:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry but reading the comments so far has left me in dis-belief.
IMAGES OF CHILDREN: THERE'S NO HARM IN LOOKING? Really? No! I for one will not stand by and watch while you politically correct criminals try to attempt to sell another disgusting act as OK for certain 'SICK' people. There's no harm (in the family looking) if they are the usual pics depicting the child/children going through their normal growing activities, eg; sports, school play, family outing etc; then this is the norm and quite acceptable. If a family member or friend 'get off' at seeing these same pics, then they need help. Anyone drooling or perving over pics of children is a disgusting and sick individual and deemed abhorrent to any healthy mature adult. Do I have to remind everyone about the NATURAL ORDER of things. They are children for f@%$ sake!
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 27 July 2017 10:47:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy